News / 'Bitter-sweet' MEPC 83 follows COP 29, narrowing scope of climate commitments

© Pachara Inthawong

IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 83 meeting, meant to establish robust mid-term decarbonisation measures, ended with a disappointing conclusion, leaving shipping line customers, not regulations, to be the driving force for cleaner shipping.

After a vote, IMO’s first in over a decade, a watered-down version of a fuel standard for ships and a global pricing mechanism for emissions was adopted.

The agreement comprises a fuel standard, a measure which determines the well-to-wake CO2 impact of fuel used, and a pricing and trading mechanism of drastically smaller scope than many had in mind.

The measures are set to be formally adopted in October, before entering into force from 2027 for large ocean-going ships over 5,000gt.

In practice, only a small proportion of ship emissions will be penalised. According to calculations by UCL Shipping and Oceans Research Group, the measures could achieve about a 10% emissions reduction over 2008 levels.

Saudi Arabia, whose leadership deems oil sales to developing countries existentially critical, led the reactionary charge throughout MEPC, as it had at COP29 several months before. Unsurprisingly, it voted ‘no’ to the deal.

However, evidently the compromise went far enough for China, which switched sides to join European countries, India, the UK and others – 63 in total – in in favour.

Hope of a flat-rate levy on greenhouse gas emissions, though, was dashed, a critical disappointment for the coalition of island nations, many of whose homes stand to be underwater by the end of the century. Pacific island states abstained from the vote, saying they could not accept the measures in their current form.

The redistributive nature of the levy proposals was supposed to give developing nations, many of which are disproportionately reliant on shipping, the funds to implement costly decarbonisation measures. According to UCL, though, the revenues generated from the deal as it stands will be around $12bn a year, a fraction of what is needed.

Not only does this fail climate-vulnerable countries, said Emma Fenton, senior director of climate diplomacy at NGO Opportunity Green, but “falls short of both the ambition the climate crisis demands and that member states committed to just two years ago”.

As proceedings began, reflecting expertly the tenor of its nation’s leadership, the US delegation threw a tantrum, threatened everyone, and withdrew from the MEPC.

A statement described the MEPC’s efforts as “an attempt to redistribute wealth under the guise of environmental protection” that would “promote the use of hypothetical expensive and unproven fuels,” adding that “…the US rejects any and all measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice”.

US threats of “reciprocal” levies were threatened against nations that agreed to impose a carbon penalty.

The world will see minimal climate impact from America’s fleet of tugs and clunkers, at any rate. The IMO ploughed on: there are, after all, 175 other member states.

LNG, its popularity surging recently, has come in for some overdue scrutiny. In a LinkedIn post, UMAS director Tristan Smith highlighted that LNG would be “limited” in terms of its long-term viability as a decarbonisation fuel.

“This pathway now faces basic penalty fees within the next few years [for LNG], and will face rapidly growing penalty fees from 2033,” he said. “[LNG] is not looking like a competitive choice for newbuilding.”

The Union of Greek Shipowners – which dominates the LNG carrier segment — was unhappy with the treatment of LNG, saying that “…the agreement does not acknowledge the vital role of transitional fuels, such as LNG, and treats them in an unfair way, undermines pertinent investments and the industry’s efforts to decarbonise”.

Mr Smith highlighted that the agreement, as it stood, would likely displace fossil fuels to the extent that they would be the minority energy source in shipping within 15 years.

Describing the outcome as “bitter-sweet”, he added that “much higher ambition” would be needed from IMO in the future.