Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
201-219)
DR GILLIAN
REYNOLDS
18 NOVEMBER 2008
Q201 Joan Walley: Good morning. Thank
you very much indeed for appearing before us this morning. I think
you have sat in and heard some of the exchanges we have just had;
and I think what we have just heard is really how current research
is putting the focus on the need for more to be done more quickly,
and for shipping emissions to be included in that. I just wonder
how far apart you think what the last witnesses were calling for
are from where the shipping industry is? What kind of cuts are
you prepared to contemplate?
Dr Reynolds: Let us be clear,
I am not really the shipping industry. Lloyd's Register is an
independent certification body and works on behalf of governments
worldwide to ensure standards, mandatory requirements and statutory
requirements are being met. We inspect on behalf of ship owners
but also on behalf of governments worldwide. What I would say
in general to the last session is something that I found last
year: with the Secretary General of the IMO's Group of Experts
looking at controlling air pollution. I led the environmental
sub-group within that; and I contacted a lot of academics to try
and get information from them; and there was a general unawareness
and a lack of understanding of what was going on within the shipping
industry, in the sense of the air pollution controls they already
had in place, and the work that was going on to tighten that regulation.
Q202 Joan Walley: I am sorry, I am
not quite clear. A lack of understanding amongst?
Dr Reynolds: A lack of understanding
and knowledge of what the shipping industry had already done and
was now trying to do. There was a lack of knowledge within academia
of what is going on. That is where I would like to start from.
It was quite widespread and it was a concern. I think it is something
that is recognised within the industry itself—that they
need to get out there and tell the world what they are doing.
That is my first comment.
Q203 Joan Walley: Trying to be specific,
Dr Barker has proposed a scheme in which emissions from international
shipping and aviation are cut to net zero by 2050. Is that something,
from where you sit at Lloyd's Register, you can see being a possibility?
What distance is there between you? Would you say that was feasible;
or would you say the shipping industry is already doing that?
Dr Reynolds: I am not aware of
any details at all of the scheme. I was only made aware of its
existence at the end of last week, and then I have had a paper
given to me this morning, which I have not read, so I do not know
any details. Until I know the proposals of how we would get there
[ie net zero emissions by 2050] then I really cannot comment on
it.
Q204 Joan Walley: Looking at it from
a different angle then, what do you think the maximum size of
cuts in absolute emissions from shipping could be by 2050?
Dr Reynolds: There are two questions:
one is the maximum cuts from individual ships; and the other one
is from shipping as a whole. We ourselves and DNV have recently
done a paper looking at technical and operational measures. In
that paper we judge that by 2050 for an individual ship we could
look at about a 65% reduction in emissions. The question is the
growth of the world fleet. Is it going to grow as predicted to
2020 and then on to 2050? My own opinion is that those predictions
are somewhat simplistic. I do not think the fleet is going to
be growing to 2050 myself. I think there is a lot to take into
consideration. One example, if you just look at the climate change
predictions, the impact of global warming, the predictions for
2050 and what the world will look like then, I do not think we
will see shipping in its current form carrying on. I do not think
we will see the world carrying on as it is now. I think we may
not see that predicted growth. From an individual ship 65%, but
that has to be set against how the fleet is going to grow or decline
over those years and I cannot really comment.
Q205 Joan Walley: Just before I move
on to my colleague Jo Swinson, can I just finally ask you: you
mentioned just now not being aware of the academic research that
there is—
Dr Reynolds: No, I am sorry, I
would not say I am not aware of the academic research—I
am just not aware of this particular scheme [ie Dr Barker's].
I have not heard of that.
Q206 Joan Walley: Given the spotlight
certainly our Committee inquiry wishes to put on shipping emissions,
do you feel there is a kind of mechanism which allows all the
different specialists, all the different partners, to come together
to really look to see how in an ideal world shipping could make
its biggest maximum contribution to reducing emissions? Do you
feel that there is that vehicle to actually do that?
Dr Reynolds: Currently, and over
the past few months, a lot of academics have become involved in
the debate about shipping.
Q207 Joan Walley: Does Lloyd's Register
welcome that?
Dr Reynolds: Definitely, yes.
Last year when I was leading the environmental sub-group within
the Group of Experts at IMO on air pollution, I brought in academics
to come and talk to us, and it was a two-way flow of information
because they did not know what was going on. It seemed that they
were doing their research and we were progressing our own research.
Yes, I certainly brought academics in then. Within the IMO, the
current research it has commissioned on greenhouse gas emissions,
there are a lot of academics involved in that. More and more academics
are becoming involved in this area. I thought I was reasonably
familiar with what is going on: I just was not familiar with this
particular piece of work from the Tyndall Centre.
Q208 Jo Swinson: It is ten years
since the IMO was given the responsibility of tackling greenhouse
gases from shipping and there has been hardly any progress since
then. Why do you think that is?
Dr Reynolds: From the outset,
when the IMO tried to discuss the issue of CO2 emissions, greenhouse
gases, there were always the objections from some of the non-Annex
1 countries [in terms of the Kyoto Protocol] saying it was not
going to apply to them; and there was a very sophisticated and
orchestrated goings-on, for want of a better word, that really
prevented any progress, and that went on for quite some time.
When MARPOL Annex VI came into force it was agreed, and it had
been foreseen that this was absolutely necessary, that MARPOL
Annex VI (which controls, for example SOx and NOx) needed to be
tightened. In 2005 most of the activity on air pollution went
to looking at tightening up MARPOL Annex VI, which the IMO did
very successfully and adopted this year; but all the work on air
pollution was almost exclusively directed to the SOx and NOx issue.
Then there came the realisation of the seriousness of the greenhouse
gas emission issue. For the past year or so IMO have been trying
exceptionally hard to get discussion and agreement on this matter;
but there has been, as I referred to, this well orchestrated union
of some non-Annex 1 countries preventing any progress on the matter.
There has been limited progress on the technical side mainly because
instead of CO2 reductions, they were able to talk about energy
efficiency indices and energy efficiency measures; and that has
been more palatable than any talk of greenhouse gas emission reductions.
IMO have tried extremely hard but have been prevented from really
progressing this issue by Non-Annex 1 Member States.
Q209 Jo Swinson: That is obviously
an impact that each of the Member States have had. I understand
that members of the shipping industry are able to attend the IMO
and although they cannot vote they can speak and can often be
quite influential. To what extent has their voice been involved
in either speeding up progress towards getting agreement, or slowing
it down?
Dr Reynolds: Most of the shipping
industry has seen the need to control greenhouse gases and has
acted very positively to progress the debate at IMO: providing
the information that they can; drafting documents to assist in
improving energy efficiency; participating in all the working
groups I would say, leading those rather than the Member States,
because the progress that is being made is very technical; and
most of the shipping industry has supported that.
Q210 Jo Swinson: How optimistic are
you, given this sophisticated, well orchestrated campaign, as
you call it, that the IMO can actually be the place where a solution
will be found?
Dr Reynolds: The IMO will, I am
sure, come up with the more technically based ship-by-ship measures:
the energy efficiency design index; recommended measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and onboard management plans. But as
for agreement on an overarching plan to reduce emissions from
the industry as a whole, I just do not think that is possible
at the present time.
Q211 Jo Swinson: You think it might
be better if that responsibility overall for tackling greenhouse
emissions was taken away from the IMO and another group found?
Dr Reynolds: I really think the
situation will change after Copenhagen in 2009. That is not my
specialist area; but I understand it is all linked to negotiating
positions at the UNFCCC and non-Annex 1 countries not wanting
to compromise their position there. Once their positions have
been renegotiated then maybe we can do something on shipping.
Q212 Jo Swinson: You mentioned the
role of Member States, and in your memo[2]
you have said that the UK has been fairly relatively passive.
What behaviour have you observed from the UK that makes you say
that? How does that compare with other Annex-1 countries, other
EU Member States for example and the role they have been playing
at the IMO?
Dr Reynolds: I can say that I
feel the UK has been rather passive because I am a member of the
UK delegation, so I sit with them. I have been at IMO attending
meetings since 1990, so I know the usual progressive stance that
the UK has. It has not on this particular issue, and there are
a number of reasons for that. I would say most recently there
are issues, such as the number of Government departments involved
in greenhouse gas emissions—Defra, the MCA, DfT and the
Treasury. For example, we wanted to put in through the UK a paper
just recommending a scheme by which we could evaluate the different
proposals for their merits, and it was very apolitical, and in
the end it was the Treasury who said, "No, we won't allow
it to be put in through the UK because we don't want to compromise
our position. We don't know what our position necessarily is but
we'll just keep it open for the future". I think that pervades—that
we will keep things open. Also the man at the MCA who led on greenhouse
gas emissions, at the IMO he was chairing the Working Group on
ballast water and control of transfers of organisms. Therefore,
he was the main contact and he was not involved in the discussions
at the IMO. He has now left so there is a replacement. Again that
is new people coming in to this very difficult environment.
Q213 Jo Swinson: Do you not think
it strange the suggestion that the UK does not want to compromise
its position, when we hear from top politicians and members of
the Government about how vital it is that we tackle climate change,
and yet we seem to be equivocating about that at the IMO?
Dr Reynolds: That was the reply
I got when we sent our paper (because I am a member of the UK
delegation/adviser or whatever) to say "Could you put this
in?" That was the response. Maybe it is a private response
and I should not have said, but nobody indicated that. That was
just the reason the Treasury would not agree to it, because they
did not want to compromise their position.
Q214 Joan Walley: Just before we
move on to the European action, I just wanted to pick you up,
if I may, on what you said about the negotiating stance. I think
it is a matter of concern if there does not appear to be a drive
and a direction in terms of the outcomes that we want from what
is going on inside the IMO. You mentioned a new person: was it
Simon Coburn that you were referring to?
Dr Reynolds: No, the UK Permanent
Representative (at IMO) has moved on, as has the person who was
the focus for greenhouse gas emissions at MCA. Both of them have
moved on.
Q215 Joan Walley: What you are really
conveying is that there is not a sense of leadership, or someone
really championing from the perspective of this agenda? Somehow
or another what has been done has been submerged within cross-departmental
fog, if you like?
Dr Reynolds: There have been so
many factors that have meant there has not been a proactive stance
at IMO, I feel, on this.
Q216 Mark Lazarowicz: The European
Commission has indicated that if a global deal within IMO is not
forthcoming in 2009 it will bring forward plans to include shipping
unilaterally in the ETS. What is your reaction to that situation?
Will that be achievable in your view, if the IMO does not come
up with an agreement, which I must say looks quite possible?
Dr Reynolds: It unfortunately
does look quite possible. My opinion is that it would be a great
pity because it would undermine the IMO. I also think it may not
be optimal—a scheme developed by the EC. I think it probably
could be done, but I am just uncertain what the benefits are.
There are, I think, some uncertainties as to what the disadvantages
might be. For example, would it mean that ships would come to
Morocco, offload their cargo onto lorries and truck them through
Spain into Europe? Could the same be of ships going to Russia
and then onward transfer of goods by road? I do not know. It depends
on the level of the penalty for the CO2 emissions as to whether
this would be a reality. I certainly know Malta is very concerned
about it, because it is a big transhipment port, and their economy
would be severely impacted if they lost that.
Q217 Mark Lazarowicz: Can you give
any idea at all—and you may not be able to—how big
a share of shipping emissions could be covered by an EU scheme?
Dr Reynolds: I do not want to
guess, and so I will not answer.
Q218 Mark Lazarowicz: What is the
EU's share of world shipping generally? Leaving aside the emissions,
but as a share of world shipping, how much shipping would be potentially
covered by such a scheme?
Dr Reynolds: It all depends; it
is down to allocation. What do you call "EU shipping"?
Is it shipping that is flagged in the EU; or shipping that calls
within the EU? It is so very difficult.
Q219 Mark Lazarowicz: Give us some
options if you can?
Dr Reynolds: I honestly do not
want to put numbers on things I do not know.
2 See Ev 52 Back
| 
