Greener shipping? A consideration of the issues associated with the introduction of emission control areas

Abstract

This paper draws upon original research undertaken in the United Kingdom and Sweden. It considers the enforcement of regulations associated with the limitation of air emissions from shipping. Specifically, it considers the enforcement of regulations pertaining to the Baltic and North Sea emission control areas (ECAs). The paper outlines the steps that have been taken to ensure vessel compliance in these ECAs. It describes the effectiveness of such enforcement as well as current limitations and gives specific emphasis to the views of vessel operators. The paper ends with a series of recommendations that have been arrived at following discussion of the research findings with a select group of industry experts.Keywords: regulation; globalisation; ports; pollution; environment; emissions BackgroundThe latter half of the twentieth century saw increased interest amongst academics in the problem of the environment, not least how to reconcile economic, social and environmental interests (Dobson 1996, 395). Within the maritime field concern with pollution, and the potential for shipping business to negatively impact on the marine environment and related biodiversity, has also grown. Marine pollution in the form of oil and chemical spills has attracted much media attention in the last 30 years as high profile incidents taking place in European waters (e.g. oil spills from the Sea Empress, Braer, Erika and Prestige) or particularly sensitive environments (e.g. Exxon Valdez) have hit the headlines. It has also attracted the attention of academics concerned to offer insight into risk mitigation and the role of regulation and of good governance in mitigating such impacts. For example, Radović et al. (2012) offer an analysis of the best strategies for the detection and assessment of oil and chemical spills arising from shipping incidents in support of more effective damage limitation, whereas Xu (2009) offers an analysis of liability in the event of pollution damage at sea. In the face of increased public and policy concerns, the shipping industry has sought actively to curtail the negative environmental externalities arising within the shipping sector, in particular that of marine pollution. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has dedicated annex VI of the MARPOL

Business models as framework for sustainable value-creation: strategic and operative leadership challenges

“…Based on this development, many shipping companies are exploring ways to reduce emissions, and several scholars have explored different 'multi-objective optimisation' strategies to improve sustainability in maritime shipping based on a trade-off between economic and operational objectives (Mansouri et al, 2015). Others have analysed the challenges faced by the maritime industry as a result of stricter environmental regulations, arguing that environmental regulations in fact also will enhance firms' competiveness by leading to innovation (Sampson et al, 2015). Nevertheless, a recent literature review (Makkonen and Repka, 2016) reports a lack of clear consensus on the economic and innovative inducement impacts of environmental regulations on maritime transport.…”

The desulphurisation of shipping: Past, present and the future under a global cap

“…Therefore, Pisani argues that the allocation of emissions based on the flag is not appropriate. Sampson et al (2016) conducted one of the first academic studies on the issue of the enforcement of SECAs, using evidence from the period 2010-2012 when the fuel price differential for bunker fuel inside and outside SECAs was not as high as it would later become. Port state inspectors, ship operators and other stakeholders were interviewed and a series of problems for the enforcement of the regulations were identified.…”

“…Port state inspectors, ship operators and other stakeholders were interviewed and a series of problems for the enforcement of the regulations were identified. In addition, ahead of the imposition of stricter limits, Sampson et al (2016) noted the concern of the industry as to the future availability of low-sulphur fuel. Kopela (2017) notes that port States can only take enforcement action for violations within their territorial waters and exclusive economic zones (EEZ), and not for violations which occur on the high seas.…”

What explains SECA compliance: rational calculation or moral judgment?

“…More credible controls and sanctions would enhance the compliance rate in Europe even further, and harmonization of the enforcement among EU countries would be important. Now the fuel sampling on ships is based on risk analysis (see Sampson et al 2016). The airborne sampling can give good back-up for port state control.…”