In a recently published report, Dr. Bevan Marten, Senior Lecturer at Victoria University, New Zealand, says that the country’s failure to regulate shipping emissions is ‘’an embarrassment’’ and argues that evidence of significant sulphur levels in the vicinity of major New Zealand ports are calling for action by the government. Dr. Marten justifies that there are both principled and practical reasons for New Zealand to ratify the Annex VI and it should be made a priority on the government’s agenda.
Currently, New Zealand states that tackling air pollution levels is not a priority because:
- First, ‘New Zealand does not currently have significant air pollution problems arising from shipping largely due to weather conditions and the low volume of shipping’;
- Second, New Zealand has no international shipping fleet operating under its flag, while virtually all foreign vessels visiting New Zealand will already be subject to the Annex VI standards as a result of flag or port State measures;
- Third, the adoption of Annex VI would increase costs for domestic shipping operators, at least once the 2020 SOX emissions levels come into effect.
The first point can be summarised as the practical argument, namely that there is insufficient local air pollution to make regulation a priority. The second can be summarised as the international regulatory argument, namely that it does not make sense for New Zealand to regulate this aspect of international shipping. The third is the economic argument around operator costs that accompanies any raising of regulatory standards.
In his article, Dr, Marten addresses each argument in turn concluding that each position is unsound:
First, there is some evidence of significant sulphur levels in the vicinity of major New Zealand ports, which at least warrants further investigation. But even if the practical impact on New Zealand itself is less pronounced than in more populous regions, air pollution is not an issue that only affects individual States, but rather an issue of immense global significance.
Second, where international regulatory considerations are concerned, there are both principled and practical reasons for New Zealand to ratify the Annex. New Zealand cannot and should not rely solely on other port States to enforce the operational aspects of MARPOL, and the IMO-led regulatory framework is one that all responsible States should engage with. New Zealand’s economic interests may also be affected by any market-based measures that are eventually introduced to combat greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, and it would be prudent for the country to acquire a place at the table for future discussions on this theme.
Third, while increased regulation will result in higher costs, there is reason to believe that New Zealand’s domestic industry would be willing to work towards reducing emissions, especially if the competitive balance with international shipping is improved.
’From an international maritime lawyer’s perspective, New Zealand’s current position on MARPOL Annex VI is an embarrassment. Ratification of MARPOL Annex VI is overdue and should be made a priority on the government’s agenda.’’, Dr. Marten argues.
