Home / Sources / Select Committees / Transport Committee / Sulphur emissions by ships
Select committee inquiry

Sulphur emissions by ships

Closed

Transport Committee · Opened 15 September 2011 · Closed 1 April 2012

7 recommendations · 4 conclusions
Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

What the inquiry looked at

“The Transport Committee called for written evidence on the implementation of IMO and EU regulations on sulphur emissions by ships, and held oral evidence sessions looking into this matter in October and November 2011. Further information: Letter from Stephen Hammond MP to Louise Ellman MP dated 17 May 2013 Letter from Louise Ellman MP to Stephen Hammond MP dated 11 March 2013 Letter from Louise Ellman MP to Patrick McLoughlin MP dated 25 October 2012 Letter from Patrick McLoughlin MP to Louise Ellman MP dated 20 November 2012 Report - Volume I (PDF Version) Report - Volume II (PDF Version) Government Response (PDF version) Call for evidence Oral evidence”

The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.

What it found

In the committee's words, from the summary of 16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence) ↗

Sulphur dioxide is a major cause of air pollution and causes significant health problems.

EU sulphur emissions are decreasing, but emissions from shipping are increasing and shipping is expected to be the main source of EU sulphur emissions by 2020. Maritime sulphur emissions are regulated by an international convention—MARPOL Annex VI. A revised Annex VI, incorporating tighter limits on sulphur emissions, was agreed in 2008.

The European Commission has now brought forward proposals to incorporate the revisions into EU law, which would be directly applicable to the UK. These proposals were the subject of our inquiry.

The benefits of the revised Annex VI and the Commission’s draft directive outweigh the costs, but while the benefits are shared widely across society the costs fall directly on ship operators. We recommend that the Government should establish how the Commission will monitor the impact of its draft directive on maritime sulphur emissions on the shipping industry, mitigating the risk of any modal shift from shipping to roads.

Many of the concerns of the shipping operators—about the availability of low-sulphur fuel, the maturity of pollution abatement technology and the timetable for implementation—stem from the requirements of the revised Annex VI, which was agreed in 2008 and which we, and the Government, support. We recommend that the Government work with industry to identify available abatement technologies and to identify and help overcome barriers to the development of this equipment.

The current Commission proposal includes a number of extra provisions—for example on the sulphur content of fuel used by passenger ships—which are not well justified. There are also numerous ambiguities which remain to be clarified. We do not think that the Commission should impose additional burdens on industry at this time.

The Minister told us that the Government would resist additional requirements being placed on the shipping industry, over and above Annex VI, and was not willing to negotiate on this issue. However, the draft directive is subject to the qualified majority voting procedure which means that the UK has no power of veto. Forging alliances with other member states to negotiate a satisfactory compromise is therefore essential. We recommend that the Government focuses on removing the tighter emissions limits on passenger ships outside specified Emissions Control Areas and on ensuring that the directive replicates Annex VI safeguards regarding the non-availability of low-sulphur fuel, and that it keeps us informed of progress during negotiations.

What the government said

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume II: Additional written evidence)

No government response is linked to this report.

Read the report ↗ Report an error

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

The government responded on 23 May 2012.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.

The government welcomes the Committee's report and shares its concern about elements of the Commission's proposal that are additional to the revised MARPOL Annex VI.

  • On the additional 0.1% sulphur limit for passenger ships outside the SOx ECA, the government is "not convinced" that the benefits would be justified by the cost and inconvenience to shipowners, and says it opposes the requirement.
  • On monitoring the Directive's impact, the government agrees with the recommendation. It would prefer a post-implementation review, and sees "little value" in one before 2015. The scope, timing and nature of the review "has yet to be agreed".
  • On abatement technology, the government says it "will assist industry where we can", and that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has been monitoring its development.
  • On impact assessment, the government will produce a new Impact Assessment "once the proposed EU Directive has been adopted" and will consult industry on it before it is finalised.

Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error

How the inquiry ran

Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 15 September 2011 to 2 July 2013.

  1. Report 2 reports
  2. Government response 23 May 2012
  3. Correspondence 2 Jul 2013

What it recommended 7 recommendations · 4 conclusions

1We accept that the benefits of the revised Annex VI significantly exceed the costs of...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Concluded (the committee's words)
We accept that the benefits of the revised Annex VI significantly exceed the costs of compliance. It is clear that, while the benefits are shared widely among the general population, the costs will fall directly on ship operators. However, the health benefits that will be gained from the Commission’s additional proposal on passenger ships will only exceed the costs if abatement technology is used, and, as we discuss in part three, it is not yet clear whether this technology will be available in the near future.
2We recommend that the Government establishes how the Commission will be monitoring the impact of...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Recommended (the committee's words)
We recommend that the Government establishes how the Commission will be monitoring the impact of its proposed revised Directive on maritime sulphur emissions on the shipping industry and asks what the Commission will do to mitigate the risk of modal shift from sea to road occurring as a result.
3We are not in a position to judge the maturity of abatement technology, but we...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Recommended (the committee's words)
We are not in a position to judge the maturity of abatement technology, but we note the comments of the Commission and others that similar concerns about availability were expressed before the introduction of emissions regulations on cars, and that suitable technology was developed to meet those requirements, and at substantially lower cost than originally predicted. The trend towards tighter emissions regulations has been obvious since at least the 1990s when the original Annex VI was being drawn up, and it is our view that operators could have been more proactive in driving this technology forward. Maritime UK told us that research and development “can only be achieved by getting the equipment fitted in ships in sufficient numbers”; we agree wholeheartedly and urge operators to take action now. In addition we recommend that the Government work with industry to identify available abatement technologies and to identify and help overcome barriers to the development of this equipment.
4The concerns of shipping operators over the availability of fuel, the maturity of abatement technology...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Concluded (the committee's words)
The concerns of shipping operators over the availability of fuel, the maturity of abatement technology and the timetable for implementation stem from the core requirements of Annex VI, rather than the variations proposed by the Commission. Tighter emissions limits have been under discussion for many years, during which time shipping has enjoyed favourable treatment when compared with the emissions limits and fuel costs faced by the road haulage industry.
5However, we acknowledge that these regulations will impose significant costs on operators, and we therefore...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Recommended (the committee's words)
However, we acknowledge that these regulations will impose significant costs on operators, and we therefore agree that the Commission should impose no additional burdens on operators at this time over and above the requirements of Annex VI. The Government should build on its own 2009 impact assessment for the revised Annex VI to evaluate the additional implications on jobs and the wider economy arising from the Commission’s proposal.
6We endorse the Government’s support for the more stringent regulation of sulphur emissions contained within...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Concluded (the committee's words)
We endorse the Government’s support for the more stringent regulation of sulphur emissions contained within the revised Annex VI. This agreement was the result of lengthy and complex negotiations, in which the UK played a leading role, and has been accepted internationally. The Annex VI provisions will markedly reduce sulphur emissions from ships, and consequently improve air quality in the UK and beyond, delivering significant health and environmental benefits.
7The Government must negotiate with the Commission if it wants to align its proposal more...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government must negotiate with the Commission if it wants to align its proposal more closely with Annex VI. Furthermore, to have any chance of success the Government will need to forge alliances with other member states. Refusing to negotiate, as the Minister suggested, is not a credible strategy for securing changes to the Commission’s proposal.
8We agree with the Government that the Commission’s proposal should replicate the requirements of Annex...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Recommended (the committee's words)
We agree with the Government that the Commission’s proposal should replicate the requirements of Annex VI. It is unnecessary and unacceptable for the Commission’s proposal to vary from Annex VI, which is a package of measures that was the product of arduous negotiation. We recommend that the Government focus its efforts on adding a provision to the revised Directive regarding the non-availability of fuel and on resisting the 0.1% limit on passenger ships outside ECAs.
9The Government must push the Commission to clarify aspects where its proposal is not clear,...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government must push the Commission to clarify aspects where its proposal is not clear, such as the definition of passenger ships on regular service and the use of techniques such as emissions averaging.
10We agree that, despite the significant costs that these tighter emissions limits will undoubtedly impose...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Concluded (the committee's words)
We agree that, despite the significant costs that these tighter emissions limits will undoubtedly impose on shipping operators, it would not be appropriate for the Government to provide them with financial support, particularly in the current economic climate. It is the responsibility of shipping operators to ensure that their activities comply with relevant environmental legislation, and they are liable for the costs of doing so.
11The Government should resist the imposition of any additional regulations proposed by the Commission which...

16th Report - Sulphur emissions by ships (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should resist the imposition of any additional regulations proposed by the Commission which fall outside Annex VI. In particular, we recommend that the Government focus on removing the tighter emissions limits on passenger ships outside ECAs and on ensuring that the Directive replicates the safeguards regarding the non-availability of suitable fuel included in Annex VI. In addition, we recommend that the Government keep us informed of developments during negotiations on the draft Directive

Correspondence 1 letter