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
| 
