Reducing CO2 and other emissions from shipping - Environmental Audit Committee Contents


Examination of Witness (Question Numbers 20-39)

MR PETER LOCKLEY

21 OCTOBER 2008

  Q20  Mr Caton: While we are talking about the European Union, the European Commission has said that it is prepared to take regional action in the absence of international agreement. What form do you see that action taking? How effective could it be?

  Mr Lockley: I would imagine that would be a regional emissions trading scheme so shipping would join the existing EU ETS much in the way that aviation has done and then you would need some way in which to define the scope of the emissions that you brought inside that emissions trading scheme. The obvious one is routes to European ports but then we get back into the issue of evasion. There are difficulties with doing any regional only schemes. You can have ships docking at North Africa, for instance, and there is also a possibility of a modal shift so the ship not only docks at North Africa it then puts all the cargo on a truck and takes it through Spain in order not to be subject to the shipping charge. The extent to which that would happen I think has not been studied a great deal and given that shipping is extremely efficient at transporting a ton of goods, I would be surprised if there were a wholesale switch to a different mode of transport. The possibility of simply touching at a non-EU port in order to be liable only for the emissions on the last leg into the EU is a more real possibility. The Commission's position has been useful in stimulating the IMO to take the issue more seriously because the IMO, certainly the secretariat, has been quite pro-active in pushing the idea of a market based instrument. I think they take their responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol now quite seriously—perhaps belatedly—and they have set up a process in order to report back to UNFCCC, to COP15 in Copenhagen about what they have achieved in this area. It was the realisation that something regional would come along if they themselves did not take action and they clearly looked over at the aviation industry, seen what has happened there and realised that they do not want to be in the same position.

  Q21  Mr Caton: So what has been the UK's position on EU action on shipping emissions?

  Mr Lockley: As far as I know they have supported the EU line that this is a fall back. We would rather see something global but if we do not get sufficient progress then yes, we would support regional action. However, I would check that with the UK Government.

  Q22  Colin Challen: What real potential is there for further emissions reductions from improvements and technology in shipping and operational practices? I was reading the Chamber of Shipping's memo[3] which rather suggested to me that they thought we had got to as good a place as we could with these things and there are problems in changing some of the operational practices. What do you think is the situation and what should the Government be doing to help develop emissions reductions from shipping?

  Mr Lockley: There is potential around. For instance, simply by travelling slower ships can save up to 40 per cent of fuel on some of the routes. The reason they do not do that is to do with the structure of their contracts and the way port charges are worked out. I would speak to the industry in more detail about why exactly that happens, but if it were possible to change the incentive structure for ships in order that they crossed oceans at the optimum fuel speed then there are significant savings to be made just on that alone. Perhaps the most inspirational thing that happened during that quite difficult week at IMO was the presentation by a company called Sky-Sails who have a very high tech take on a very old idea which is sails for ships. They now produce very large power kites which run out in front of the ship and describe a figure of eight in order to maximise the pull on the ship. Although these have only been demonstrated on a couple of ships to date, they are quite promising as a piece of technology and in the optimum conditions they save up to 57 per cent of a ship's fuel. That is not going to be the case for every route and every wind direction, but clearly there are substantial savings there. I think while perhaps the status quo does have to change quite significantly, there are clearly substantial reductions available.

  Q23  Colin Challen: It certainly sounds to me like the idea of developing world trade on the basis of sail is innovative and we ought to investigate that further. Does the Government have a role to play here because if we were saying to the shipping companies and their operators that things have to slow down, they have to save emissions by reducing speed and so on, that is going to affect the whole business culture of just in time. You cannot simply say to one sector that they must go slower when all the other sectors are saying they want things just in time because they are not prepared to pay for warehousing costs. We would just end up with warehouses on the oceans.

  Mr Lockley: My understanding is that ships quite often do not do that. They will steam across the ocean and then wait two weeks in a port because there is a first come, first served basis in the port, whereas if that could be restructured they would be perfectly happy to spend that time on the high seas and still do a just in time delivery. I think there are instances when it is a case of hurry up and wait and they are rushing across the oceans just to wait to deliver their cargo.

  Q24  Colin Challen: Will the IMO's proposed design index and operational index make much of a difference, do you think? How quickly would that difference occur if it did?

  Mr Lockley: I cannot pretend that I understand the design index. It is a mathematical formula stretching across an entire page which was being designed by a committee of a hundred people at IMO. I occasionally raise my head and hear the words "wave co-efficient" and go back to my e-mails! I think that is something you would have to ask the technical experts within the shipping industry. However, my sense is that with a formula that complicated there would be a lot of possibility for gaming the system. That would be my concern.

  Q25  Joan Walley: I would like to turn to emissions which are affecting air quality. I think there is quite a lot of concern about the direct cause from shipping emissions of something like 60,000 deaths a year, including 27,000 deaths in Europe. I just wondered what difference you felt the latest IMO agreement under the MARPOL Annex could make in respect of actually reducing the impact of shipping emissions. I am talking about sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, that kind of thing.

  Mr Lockley: The MARPOL VI agreements regulate sulphur emissions within special areas and in those areas ships will have to be emitting considerably less sulphur than they do in the current heavy fuel oil. There are two options, one that they switch to distilled fuel—essentially diesel—instead of burning very heavy fuel off the bottom of the refinery as they do at the moment; or they have SOx scrubbers on board. My understanding from talking to people in the shipping industry is that those SOx scrubbers are not really up to scratch yet, they are not robust enough to survive life at sea. I think there are problems about meeting those Annex VI obligations and already the other week we saw at the MEPC countries raising concerns and making first moves to dilute those because some of the cost estimates of what it would mean to actually meet them have started to come through and it is going to be very expensive. I am not saying it is going to happen, but there is concern that those regulations might be watered down which would be a great shame because they are very important in fighting that marine pollution. Directly in ports, which is where there is the human health impact, ships are waiting in ports and running their engines in order to generate energy for functions on board, there are ways in which the ports' authorities themselves could tackle that problem, for instance by providing onshore electricity, preferably renewable electricity, directly into the ships so that they did not have to run their engines. Our recommendation is that there could be legislation for that so that port dues would automatically cover that charge, so a ship would already have been charged for its shoreside electricity therefore it would not be saving anything by running its engines, whereas currently electricity is a charge on top and it is probably cheaper for the ship just to sit there chugging over its engine to generate electricity.

  Q26  Joan Walley: Could I just check in respect of MARPOL VI, is that just about sulphur dioxide or is that about other emissions as well?

  Mr Lockley: I think the latest amendments to MARPOL VI are specifically about sulphur dioxide. In the wider Annex VI there are other pollutants covered, although I would have to check that. I am happy to do that and get back to you.

  Q27  Joan Walley: Thank you. In the comments you have just made about shoreside renewable generation, if that is not explicitly covered under this latest amendment to the MARPOL convention, how could that be addressed by the European Commission? Are you aware of talks within the EC about trying to get across Europe a common approach towards dealing with ships in harbour and using electricity in this way?

  Mr Lockley: I am not aware of any. Clearly a European-wide approach would be preferable to simply doing it in the UK because it is a problem right across Europe. Potentially that is something the Commission could legislate for. I will speak to my marine colleagues to see if there are any moves afoot either in the UK or in Europe, but my understanding is that there are not at the moment.

  Q28  Joan Walley: My reason for asking was that we have picked up from The Naval Architect back in January that "the UK Government and industry leaders have appealed to UK ports and their shipping line customers to unite in persuading the European Commission to move away from favouring shoreside electricity for ships in port". I just wondered if you had been involved or had any knowledge of those discussions and how we go about getting across those talks a common approach to the kind of dues you are talking about that would give a level playing field but provide that shoreside renewable generation.

  Mr Lockley: I was not aware of that; that is interesting. I will take that up.

  Chairman: Thank you very much indeed; that was a very helpful session for us.






3   See Memorandum submitted by The Chamber of Shipping Ev 29 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 1 June 2009