NGOs show no excitement over IMO’s revised GHG strategy

IMO, a serial procrastinator 

According to Clean Arctic Alliance, IMO (International Maritime Organization) should have taken swift action to slash black carbon emissions from shipping, but this week it proved its credentials as a serial procrastinator by again failing to give any serious consideration or commitment to reducing black carbon emissions.

IMO member states had a unique chance to show global leadership by curbing the shipping sector’s impact on the climate and the Arctic by slashing greenhouse gas emissions – but have instead opted for a bland, and weaker version of their earlier ambitions

… said Clean Arctic Alliance Lead Advisor Dr Sian Prior.

Delaine McCullough, Campaign Manager, Shipping Emissions, Ocean Conservancy, said that while the new GHG strategy nearly doubles the long-term ambition over the initial 2018 strategy, the checkpoints for 2030 and 2040 that were finally agreed to fall short of what is needed to ensure a warming limit of 1.5C.

The IMO had the opportunity to set an unambiguous and clear course towards the 1.5ºC temperature goal, but all it came up with is a wishy-washy compromise.

… said Faig Abbasov, Shipping Programme Director at Transport & Environment (T&E)

Lack of transparency and efficiency 

Some NGOs also questioned IMO’s transparency and efficiency as an international organization, accusing the organization of holding the conversation behind closed doors and not taking enough action to address the issue.

This agreement is the latest example of a pattern of behaviour at the IMO, where climate and environment issues are addressed but not adequately responded to, and raises further questions about the institution’s suitability as a venue for tackling shipping’s serious impact on the climate and oceans

… stated the Clean Shipping Coalition

The Clean Shipping Coalition further stated that holding conversations behind closed doors, without all stakeholders or the media present, raises fundamental concerns about the IMO’s institutional transparency.

There is a real sinking feeling in the IMO. This agreement does not address the climate crisis or meet 1.5 limits. In typical IMO fashion there was delay tactics in working groups while the real inaction happened behind closed doors where many were excluded until the final hour and in front of a near ultimatum.

… said Dr Lucy Gilliam, Senior Shipping Policy Officer, Seas at Risk

National measures to reduce emissions

Another shared idea amongst NGOs was that Member States now have to act on a national level, as they find that IMO’s measures are not efficient enough.

National governments and regions must now urgently put in place strong measures to enforce a lowering of shipping emissions if we are to stay within the 1.5C target of the Paris Agreement

… said Clean Arctic Alliance Lead Advisor, Dr Sian Prior.

Faig Abbasov, Shipping Programme Director at Transport & Environment (T&E) added that fortunately, states like the US, UK and the EU don’t have to wait for China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia to act. Ambitious national policies and green shipping lanes can have a global impact.

Due to this failure, we need ambitious countries and blocs to chart their own course and set carbon levies at national and regional level of at least $100 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

… said Daniele Rao, Carbon Market Watch, Pacific Environment

Just and equitable transition

The World Bank has estimated that $1 trillion to $3.7 trillion could be raised from putting a price on shipping emissions by 2050. However, the revised Strategy states that the earliest such a measure could enter into force is 2027, which is too little too late to meet 1.5°C, and does little to support a just and equitable transition for climate vulnerable nations, Opportunity Green claimed.

Finally, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) also pointed out in a statement that a global levy on ship’s GHG emissions must now be adopted rapidly if the ambitious goals agreed are to remain plausible.