1.5% in bunker fuel, whereas the international regulation stipulates a maximum of 4.5%.
As shown on the map, Russia has not signed the Marpol convention that regulates the sulphur emissions, which could have significant effect on trade flows if Russian ships do not comply.
The Emission Control Area (ECA), constituting only the Baltic Sea, North Sea and the English Channel, is an area covering only about 0.3% of the world’s water surface.
In April 2008 at the 57th meeting of IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) new regulations of sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions were adopted, which were later confirmed at the 58th meeting in October 2008.
The beforehand position of member states, the
EC and other stakeholders, was a lowering of the ECA
regulation from 1.5% sulphur content to 0.5%. This
is a hard and stringent regulation for the shipping
industry but, even so, the involved parties agreed to
it. However, at the meeting and due to an unknown
reason the level was suddenly lowered in the negotia-
tions to 0.1% to be implemented as soon as 2015. This
was adopted without any feasibility study. The new
sulphur rules are, with levels both globally and within
the SECA, are shown in Fig. 2.
The cost of bunker fuel increases dramatically when going from 0.5% to 0.1%, resulting in a fuel cost increase of 60-100%. Hence, the decision of 0.1% came truly as a shock for all stakeholders. What is most disturbing is that there was no impact assessment made whatsoever of the 0.1% level before making the decision. Also, note that on the international level, stricter rules will apply only if an impact assessment shows it possible.
Even the environmental effect of lowering the sulphur emission in the ECA is arguable, since eutrophication in the Baltic to a large extent is dependent on the nitrogen emission in this area, not the sulphur emission. Also, the argument of particles is questionable.
In the report by the Swedish Maritime Industry it is clearly shown that sulphur levels of 0.1% will lead to a modal backshift, forcing freight on to roads since it will be cost-efficient with lorries. Even from north of Sweden, it would be more cost effective to go by lorry to Germany or even to southern Europe in some cases.
References:
Archives