CNSS Work package 3, Baseline of Knowledge

The challenge of emission

control in maritime law

A summary of the current international and European

regulations and their implementation

CNSS
March 2014
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW

Table of contents

Section 1 A summary of the current international and European

regulations and their implementation
LIST OF FIGURES 2
1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. REVIEW METHODOLOGY AND INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE 5
3. CURRENT REGULATIONS AND THEIR APPLICATION 6
3.1 IMO REGULATIONS 6
3.2 REGULATIONS AT EU LEVEL 8
3.3 MARPOL CONTROL AND PENALTIES IN GERMANY 9
4. ABSTRACT OF THE RESULTS 11
5. CONCLUSION 15
6. REFERENCES 16

Section 2 Evaluation of the interviews concerning new

developments in emission control for the shipping sector

1. INTRODUCTION 19

2. CURRENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN EMISSION CONTROL 20

3. ONGOING POSSIBILITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS TO REDUCE AIR EMISSIONS 24

4. CONCLUSION 30

5. LITERATURE 31

List of figures
Fig. 1: The six annexes of the MARPOL convention (status as of 6.12.2012)
Own account, data base IMO (2013d). URL:
http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx (Accessed 14.01.2013).

Fig. 2: Limits for the emission of nitrogen oxides

Own account, data base IMO (2013e). URL:
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-
%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx (Accessed 04.02.2013).

2
 A summary of
the current international
and European
regulations and their
implementation

Compiled by Hanna Bergelt

Fig. 3: MARPOL 73/78 annex VI / 2010 control and penalties

Own account, data base BSH (2012). Ordnungswidrigkeits-Statistik 2010. Inedited, intern information of the BSH
from 02.01.2013.

Fig. 4: Sulphur limits from 2008 to 2020 (% mass)

gCaptain (2012). URL: http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Picture-5.png (Accessed 04.02.2012).

Fig. 5: IMO NOx emission limits

YANMAR (2010). URL: http://www.yanmar.co.jp/en/marine/tips/imo/image/picIndex01.jpg (Accessed 04.02.2013).

Fig. 6: Changes in CO2 emission after the implementation of EEDI and SEEMP measures
ICCT (THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION) (2013). URL:
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/CO2_intensity_shipping.png (Accessed 04.02.2013).

3
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW
1. Introduction
Emission control in national and international maritime
law poses many challenges. The impact of emissions
emanating from ships has received a great deal of
political and media attention in recent years. In
contrast to the negative impacts of emissions from
land-based transport, the public is not generally aware
of the impacts of maritime traffic emissions. However,
the scientifically proven effects of maritime traffic
emissions on humans and their environment, effects
which extend far beyond the immediate coastline into
the interior of surrounding countries, demand remedial
action.
Although there is an urgent need for action, maritime
emission control remains a conflicting priority for
several stakeholders. In the study area of the North
Sea, international rules defined by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) are in effect as well as
rules defined by the European Union (EU). These rules
and the interaction of the stakeholders will be
4
investigated in this report, along with the role of
national legislative processes. In the following section
the maritime emission control rules that apply in the
North Sea, and how effective these measures are in
international waters, will be considered, along with an
overview of the current situation and legal positions.
Future opportunities and the potential for reducing
emissions will also be considered, and will include
measures that have not been fully established yet but
are increasingly applied to emission control. Current
developments are taking place in a complex
environment of ecological and economic influences.
The stakeholders are not only interested in ecological
developments, but also economic improvements. The
goal of this report is to provide an overview of emission
control in maritime law and the associated issues.
2. Review methodology and interview technique
As emission control in international shipping is a
sensitive issue undergoing negotiation at present, it is
quite difficult to access current and accurate
information. Although a literature review on its own
would provide the necessary background information,
it would lack an in-depth consideration of the current
challenges for emission control. This report will
therefore include two stagesa literature review and
an overview of the current situation.
The literature review focused mainly on the legal
documentation, which covers most of the judicial
regulations governing emission control in the shipping
sector. Additional references, including the
publications of the IMO and the information available
on its web site, were also consulted. The IMO web site,
which is constantly updated, provides an up-to-date
overview of the current IMO regulations and their
activities regarding emission control.
After the literature review sets the context for the
current regulations, the next step was to conduct a
series of interviews, each aimed at certifying the
available information. Each interviewee was expected
to recount incidents, experiences and knowledge. For
the purposes of this report expert interviews were
undertaken. This approach was considered to be more
appropriate than qualitative interviews, as expert
interviews assume the interviewee has a direct
involvement in the issue being discussed (cf.
Bohnsack et al. 2006:95f). The expert interview is a
methodological approach and an independent
procedure (cf. Bohnsack et al. 2006:57). It also
provides a useful supplement to the literature review
and a detailed insight into emission protection on both
political and economic levels. The guidelines for expert
interviews are based on the open interview procedure
(cf. Bohnsack et al. 2006:58). Experts are people with
acknowledged expertise in a given subject area. This
expertise usually exceeds standard questions and
cannot be captured with standard survey techniques
(cf. Scholl 2003:67). Due to the commitment to conduct
expert interviews, it is assumed that there will be a
knowledge gap as a result of the expertise of the
people being interviewed. The guidelines for
conducting the interviews were flexible, resulting in a
moderately structured interview.
The purpose of the interviews was to gather more
detailed information, insights into current
developments and assessments of the prevailing legal
conditions and upcoming measures. In total four
qualitative interviews with representatives from different
sectors were undertaken to provide a comprehensive
overview. The interviewees included an IMO employee
based in London, the president of the Bundesamt fr
Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH), the former
president of the BSH and the director of the Verband
Deutscher Reeder. This diversity of opinion was sought
to provide information on both international and
national levels. It also seemed appropriate to ask for
an assessment from the ship owners, for although
there is a great deal of information about the current
regulations, there is less information available about
the practicality of these regulations.
Although all of the interviews covered the same subject
area, each interview was based on a different set of
guidelines, appropriate to the type of interview being
conducted, and was structured according to the
specific area of expertise of the individual interviewee.
The common subject area provided the basis for
comparing the results the interviews (cf. Bohnsack et
al. 2006:114).
5
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW

3. Current regulations and their application

Emission protection regulation in the North Sea should
be considered on three levels national, European
and international. The national level is examined
through the example of Germany. As there are no
important emission protection regulations for
international shipping, the following section will
comment only on the regulations of the IMO as an
international representative and on the EU. The IMO
regulations represent the majority of maritime law
concerning emission protection. Additional regulations
in European law are discussed in the following section.
3.1 IMO regulations
MARPOL 73/78
The International Convention of 1973 for the Prevention
of Marine Pollution from Ships as amended in 1978
(MARPOL 73/78) provides information on the
regulations from 1973 and 1978 and their subsequent
amendments. The MARPOL convention, containing
general policies and special regulations in six
annexes, focused on minimising pollution by ships and
applies equally to every member state worldwide (cf.
IMO 2006:3ff). To enforce MARPOL 73/78, the
regulations set out in the convention must be adopted
in national law. Initially the implementation of MARPOL
73/78 was confined to the ships of member states,
meaning that it only applied to ships flying the flag of a
member state or operating under that state's sovereign
territory. The no more favourable treatment condition
(MARPOL 73/78, art.5, par.4) of the IMO regulations
ensures that ships that do not fly the flag of a member
state are also forced to adopt similar standards (cf.
IMO 2006:7).

Fig. 1: The six annexes of the MARPOL convention (status as of 6.12.2012)

Instrument Date of entry No. of member % world

into force States / Parties tonnage

MARPOL 73/78 (annex I/II) 02/10/1983 152 99.20

MARPOL 73/78 (annex III) 01/07/1992 138 97,59

MARPOL 73/78 (annex IV) 27/09/2003 131 89,65

MARPOL 73/78 (annex V) 31/12/1988 144 98,47

MARPOL Protocol 1997 (annex VI) 19/05/2005 72 94,30

Source: Own account, data base IMO 2013d

6
Although annex VI, the Regulations for the Prevention
of Air Pollution from Ships, came into force in 2005, it
was amended in September 2007 by MARPOL
member states. The exact limits for the emission of air
pollutants are defined in annex VI, which although it
only has only 72 signatories, covers 94.30% of the
world tonnage. So it is fair to say that annex VI
regulations are international standards.
Regulation 13 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Regulation 13 defines the amount of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) that a ship is permitted to release. This amount
depends on a ship's engine size, with the limits for
nitrogen oxides emission fixed according to the engine
speed. The limits are specified in three levels, or Tiers,
which relate to the construction date of the ship.
As shown in Fig. 2, Tier I, II and III define the different
limits for the emission of nitrogen oxidesthe newer
the ship, the more strict the regulations. From the start
of 2016, NOx emissions will be drastically reduced. The
Tier III limits are only applied to ships operating in the
emission control areas. Until now the North Sea has
not been classified as a Nitrogen Emission Control
Area (NECA), but a possible designation is currently
being considered. Beyond the NECA Tier II, limits are
in force for ships built after the beginning of 2011 (cf.
IMO 2013a).

Fig. 2: Limits for the emission of nitrogen oxides

Tier Ship construction Total weighted cycle emission limit (g/kWh)

date on or after n= engines rated speed (rpm)

n < 130 n = 130-1999 n 2000

I 1.1.2000 17.0 45.n-0.2 9.8

e.g., 720 rpm 12.1

II 1.1.2011 14.4 44.n-0.23 7.7

e.g., 720 rpm 9.7

III 1.1.2016 3.4 9.n-0.2 2.0

e.g., 720 rpm 2.4

Source: Own account, data base IMO 2013e

7
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW
Regulation 14 - Sulphur Oxides (SOx)
A limit of 6.0g SOx per kWh applies to all emission
control systems. At the same time, the fuel sulphur
content should not to exceed a value of 3.5%. In the
designated SECAs (Sulphur Emission Control Areas) in
the North Sea or the Baltic Sea, the fuel sulphur
content should not exceed 1.0%. The fuel suppliers are
legally obliged to verify the sulphur content through
supporting documentary evidence. There will be a
further reduction in the SECAs to 0.1% from the
beginning of 2015. Effective from the beginning of
2020, there will be a limit of 0.5% sulphur content in
fuel worldwide (cf. IMO 2013b).
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
and Ship Energy Efficiency Management
Plan (SEEMP)
Chapter four of annex VI sets out two energy efficiency
regulations for shipsthe Energy Efficiency Design
Index (EEDI), which is mandatory for all new build
ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management
Plan (SEEMP).
The EEDI is regarded by the IMO as the most
important technical measure. The aim of the EEDI is to
encourage the use of energy efficient with less
polluting facilities and engines, and is an indication of
the energy efficiency of a particular ship design (cf.
FSI 2012). The EEDI assumes a minimum energy
efficiency level for different types of ships and is a
measure of the emissions from a ship under
specialized operating conditions, determined by the
classification of a ship (cf. FSI 2012). A Baseline-EEDI
should be established by the IMO for all types of ships.
At the beginning of 2013 the initial biennial phase
started. Thereafter the Baseline-EEDI will be reduced
every five years for the different ship types. Through
continuing innovation and technical developments,
higher levels of energy efficiency are anticipated
through improvements in ship design (cf. IMO 2013c).
The SEEMP is an operational measure to reduce
further emissions. Every ship will be provided with a
8
SEEMP, which provides a management plan to ensure
energy efficiency on board a ship. The adoption of
measures set out in the plan is expected to optimise a
ship's operating procedures, reduce energy
consumption and result in energy savings. The SEEMP
is based on a management principle of strategy
execution monitoring the execution evaluation and
advancement of the energy-efficiency measures (cf.
Henning 2011:14f).
Due to the high percentage of the worlds tonnage
operated by the member states, it can be assumed
that the regulations described in annex VI of the
MARPOL convention annex apply to shipping
worldwide.
3.2 Regulations at EU level
The EU has a coastline of approximately 89.000
kilometres with hundreds of seaports (cf. European
Commission 2001:3). Given the importance of the
maritime economy, the EU is increasingly interested in
the shipping sector. The EU is represented at the IMO
and is actively involved in maritime regulations. At the
same time, the European Commission (EC) works on
European regulations concerning emission protection
at sea. The EU Regulation 95/21 (1995) for example
defines common practice within the scope of Port State
Control (PSC) for all EU member states (cf. European
Community 1995:1ff). The aim of this regulation is to
improve and unify the inspection process, with unsafe
vessels recorded on a black list. This regulation also
aims to remove substandard ships from operation (cf.
Woelki 2006:15). As such, the EU has issued an order
to their member states that increases the regulation of
ships and contributes to the compliance of MARPOL
convention standards.
In August 2005 regulation 2005/33/EG came into force.
This regulation, based on a strategy to improve air
quality, targets a reduction in sulphur content.
Although it primarily exists to implement MARPOL
annex VI, it also goes beyond the regulations of the
IMO by setting tighter emission limits for ships in ports
than those defined in MARPOL annex VI. Since
January 2010 ship fuel sulphur content must not
exceed 0.1% (cf. European Union 2005:60ff), although
this regulation does not apply to ships at berth in a
port for less than two hours (cf. Breuch-Moritz
2006:64).
In May 2006 the EC adopted recommendation
2006/339/EG, which covers the use of land-based
electricity by ships in ports (cf. European Union
2006:38ff). Through a series of tax concessions for
using land-based energy, ship owners are encouraged
to consider alternative energy sources.
The aim of the EU, with respect to maritime
environment protection, is establish a standard
implementation of important resolutions at a European
level and requirements for all vessels putting in at
European ports. Member states are able to negotiate
their position with respect to the various resolutions
through discussions within the IMO at EU Council level
(cf. Breuch-Moritz 2006:68). In the context of the wider
international shipping sector, it is important to manage
the regulations consistently to avoid distorting
competition. The EU is able to provide the necessary
framework for implementing regulations and a
guarantee of equal competition for all member states.
Until now the EU has excluded shipping from the EU
Emission Trading Directive, although recent
discussions have also considered reducing CO2
emissions too. If the IMO will not adopt regulations for
Fig. 3: MARPOL 73/78 annex VI / 2010 control and penalties
Controls Penalties
Hamburg 291 125
Bremen 405 37
Niedersachsen 1.145 8 2
Schleswig-Holstein 1.102 45
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 306 2 0
Gesamt 3.249 217
Source: Own account, data base BSH 2012
reducing CO2 emissions, it is anticipated that the EU
will include shipping in the EU Emission Trading
Directive (cf. Knig 2010:133ff).
Although the IMO provides important regulations for
the shipping sector on a global level, it lacks a
centrally managed authority to enforce those
regulations and impose penalties. As a result there is
considerable latitude for member states with respect to
implementing those regulations. The EU tries to
counteract this deficiency by binding weak IMO
legislation to EC law (cf. Herma 2006:77f). The EU has
an advantage over the IMO in that, as a result of article
211 EGV, it has the authority to enforce regulations.
The European Court of Justice also is allowed to
impose financial penalties pursuant to article 228,
paragraph 2 EGV (cf. Callies/Ruffert 2007:1997).
3.3 MARPOL control and penalties in
Germany
The primary enforcement of international regulations is
administered by the member states. In addition to Port
State Control, there are additional controls and
penalties to ensure the compliance of the international
standards. Fig. 3 lists the controls and penalties of
MARPOL 73/78 annex VI that are available in Germany
(2010), grouped by federal state.
Advertisements Admonishments
(with/without fine)
14 35/53
9 35/0
2/0
21 18/6
1/1
46 91/60
9
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW

In 2010, 14.252 MARPOL controls were issued, the trend suggests that MARPOL annex infringements are
highest number of controls since the beginning of occurring less frequently with more ships adhering to
MARPOL, with 3.249 controls concerned with emission the regulations.
limits. There were 217
registered MARPOL
annex VI penalties, 46 of
which resulted in
prosecution by the BSH.

Altogether 151
infringements were noted
by the water police, with
91 being subject to a
fine. The largest number
of infringements occurred
in Hamburg, one of the
largest, and
internationally important,
ports. In most cases the
police were involved and
nearly 50% of the cases
involved a fine of up to
35. In 2002 the average
fine for MARPOL annex
controls was about
1.600, whereas in 2010
it was only 295 (cf. BSH
2012). The downward
Photo: www.mediaserver.hamburg.de/C. Spahrbier

10
4. Abstract of the results
With respect to the regulations at the IMO and EU
level, the influence of European and international
politics, especially regarding sulphur emission limits in
the North Sea, is apparent. Fig. 4 shows the sulphur
emission limits from 2008 to 2020a reduction SO2
emission is discernible during that time. This reflects
the many measures in recent years to reduce SO2
emissions. The regulations set out by the IMO until
2020 set the limits in the Emission Control Areas and in
the ports of the EU. It is anticipated that by 2020, a
global emission standards will be established. This will
lead to a significant reduction in SO2 emissions and
the associated negative effects on human and
environmental health.
The experts that were interviewed as part of this review
all agreed that the reduction of 0.5% sulphur content in
Fig. 4: Sulphur limits from 2008 to 2020 (% mass)
Source: gCaptain 2012
fuel in 2020, approved by the IMO, will come into
force. The decision to implement this regulation by
2020 or 2025 will be taken in 2018. For ship owners
this additional reduction means that their ships must
operate with the reduced sulphur content fuel. Mr. Dr.
Krger of the Verband Deutscher Reeder expects no
significant problems for ship owners to comply with the
0.5% limit. This reduction was a compromise for all the
stakeholders, with some ship owners already switching
to use the 0.5 % sulphur content fuel. However, using
the 0.1% sulphur content fuel will mean additional
costs for the ship owners as this fuel is much more
expensive. Until now this fuel is only required for ports
in the EU, so only a small amount of the fuel was
needed. The number of short routes, for which the
0.1% fuel is mandatory, is not very significant (cf. pers.
comm. Krger 2013).
11
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW

The situation will be different when this fuel becomes
mandatory for all EU shipping traffic in the North Sea
by 2015, although here too it seems that international
traffic operating in the North Sea will not be affected as
much by the changes. The distances ships cover in
the North Sea, relative to the whole journey through
international waters, are small. However, the new
regulations enforced in the SECAs will be a major
consideration for ships operating exclusively in the
waters of the North Sea and ship owners will incur
additional high costs. Mr. Dr. Krger notes that due to
the 0.1% regulation in European ports there is already
a marked reduction in SO2 emissions, and he rejects
any further emission controls as the shipping industry
is currently facing an economic crisis (cf. pers. comm.
Krger 2013). The economic consequences following
the implementation of these regulations remain unclear
at present. Traffic in the North Sea cannot operate
elsewhere, so higher fuel costs are unavoidable, with
the main burden assumed by the ship owners
operating in those affected areas.
Looking at the NOx emission limits set out in the IMO
guidelines, it is also possible to discern a clear
downward trend in emissions. Fig. 5 illustrates the
emission of NOx under Tier III regulations has been
drastically reduced.

Fig. 5: IMO NOx emission limits

Source: Yanmar 2010

12
Tier II has also resulted in low NOx emissions, but the
most significant reduction is due to Tier III. As Tier III
only applies to the emission control areas (ECAs or
NECAs), the ships operating in these areas have
additional responsibilities. Precisely which limits are
valid in the North Sea are not clear yet. If the North Sea
is designated as a NECA, in addition to the current
strict SO2 limits, there also will be a further reduction in
NOx limits.
Most experts agree that the introduction of the EEDI
and SEEMP measures have been beneficial. Dr.
Krger comments that no other industry has adopted
such unique regulations for energy efficiency
improvements, and he makes sure that the Verband
Deutscher Reeder is fully behind this development.
Fig. 6: Changes in CO2 emission after the implementation of EEDI and SEEMP measures
Source: icct 2013
The shipping industry is the only industry currently
implementing a global management tool (cf. pers.
comm. Krger 2013). As a result of adopting these
management practices, a clear reduction in CO2 has
been achieved (cf. Fig. 6).
Despite this, it remains difficult to gauge the exact
impact of the EEDI and the SEEMP. As Fig. 6 shows,
even in the most negative scenario (red line) a
significant reduction in CO2 emissions can be
achieved. It is clear that the international community
must increase their awareness of the problems
associated with CO2 emissionsthere is no
disagreement that the emission levels of CO2 are
currently too high. A global solution is currently being
sought, but there is no significant input to this from the
13
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW
IMO. It remains unclear as to whether the EU will
address this issue in the coming years without the
support of the IMO, and exactly what the
consequences will be for European ports.
Finally there is also the question of the effectiveness of
these measures concerning emission protection.
Imposing controls and penalties are proving to be a
challenge, along with the associated judicial
difficulties. The effectiveness of these measures is
directly linked to the inspection system adopted by
each member state; the IMO does not have the power
to police these measures at an international level. To
assess the effectiveness of the IMO and EU
regulations it must be possible to monitor the
implementation, and issue sanctions where
appropriate, in each country subject to MARPOL
annex VI. It is not possible to draw general conclusions
at present as policing the regulations is a matter for the
individual countries.
From the results of a BSH paper on this however, it is
clear that the IMO regulations seem to be effective and
are generally accepted by the international shipping
community. Violations of the MARPOL 73/78 annex VI
regulations, and the amount of associated fines, have
declined. This is the only visible sign that the
compulsory regulations are being adhered to by
international maritime vessels operating in German
waters. The experts have always claimed that emission
control is taken seriously in Germany. However, not all
of the participating countries are as strict as Germany
when it comes to implementing and policing the
regulations. The different approaches to handling
regulation violations are one of the biggest challenges
for emission protection measures. Although global
standards do exist, the level of compliance and
policing in different areas can vary considerably. It is
generally accepted that the North Sea states adopt the
same approach to implementation and policing (cf.
pers. comm. Krger 2013), and no major
discrepancies exist. The high standards adopted by
Germany with respect to management of control and
violation penalties, also seem to apply to other North
Sea states. As a result, the emission protection
measures have been effective due to the consistency
14
of approaches adopted by participating countries.
However, there is still room for improvement in
emission protection at sea. Additional opportunities to
reduce emissions on the North Sea are possible due to
slow steaming, access to Onshore Power Supplies
(OPS), using Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) as alternative
fuel or the designation of a NECA. Many of these
alternatives are currently being considered and in
some cases under development. Just how quickly
these new developments will be adopted currently
remains unclear. The development of the LNG
infrastructure, for example, will take some years and
that development is only likely if stricter limits are
introduced making an alternative fuel source essential.
This could happen by 2015 following the
implementation of the new 0.1% sulphur content limit in
fuel. LNG could prove to be an ecologically expedient
and economically lucrative alternative for ship owners
and those involved in the development of the LNG
infrastructure. The designation of the North Sea NECA
could trigger a significant expansion of the LNG
infrastructure, although whether this will happen or not
remains to be seen. A decision on the designation of
the NECA is expected this year. The strict nitrogen
emission limits that apply in the NECA are only initially
valid for new build ships. However, surveys indicate
that there will be major changes concerning emission
levels by 2030 due to the implementation of the NECA
(cf. PBL 2012 & Danish Ministry of the Environment
2012). If a NECA comes into force, this will mean
enormous challenges for the traffic operating in the
North Sea. Next to the already low SO2 levels, there will
be significant reductions in NOx emissions. How much
these changes will burden the maritime sector, already
struggling under the current economic conditions,
remains unclear. The full impact of the NECA will only
become apparent once it comes into force.
The proposed alternatives have both environmental
and economic advantages and disadvantages. One
thing is clear; there is a great deal of determination
and many far-reaching ambitions to make shipping
cleaner.
Emission protection in the shipping sector remains a
 5. Conclusion
significant challenge for national and international
maritime law. International regulations accepted and
implemented by all IMO member states will be
required to ensure greater protection; this is the only
way to achieve maximum effectiveness. Emission
control, still a relatively new part of environmental
protection, must become an urgent global issue before
it can be addressed by international law. At present
not all countries assign the same level of priority to
controlling their emissions. However, in the research
area of the North Sea, there is a high level of
awareness of the urgent need to implement emission
control, a fact illustrated by the joint designation of the
SECA by North Sea states and the impending
designation of a NECA.
The emission control measures in the North Sea are
considered to be very effective. Experts concur that all
North Sea states are consistent and rigorous in their
enforcement and policing of the regulations by
international standards. The reduction of infringements,
and the seriousness of those infringements,
demonstrates that the international shipping
community has responded to the need for standards.
Groningen Seaports
The increasing use of Port State Control in the EU
member states seems to be an effective instrument to
control emission limits and to ensure ships comply with
the regulations. The EU could, in conjunction with the
IMO, seek to ensure that international limits are applied
consistently to avoid any regions suffering a
competitive disadvantage. The EU already supports
the consistent implementation of controls at a
European level, thus contributing to the effectiveness
of international regulations.
Finally, the introduction of MARPOL 73/78 annex VI has
resulted in the public becoming more aware of
emission control issues that continue to emerge and
present the international legislature with new
challenges. The alternative solutions for reducing
emissions discussed in this report will also continue to
be developed and adopted in light of tighter emission
regulations. If it can be demonstrated that the
measures work effectively in the North European
waters, these measures could be extended to other
areas.
15
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW

6. References

BOHNSACK, R. / MAROTZKI, W. / MEUSER, M. (Eds.) (2006). Hauptbegriffe Qualitativer Sozialforschung. 2nd

ed. Verlag Barbara Budrich: Opladen & Farmington Hills.

BREUCH-MORITZ, M. (2006). Neue internationale Schifffahrtsregelungen fr den Schutz der Meere. In:
Rostocker Schriften zum Seerecht und Umweltrecht 37: Hafenrecht und Schutz der Meere: neue Entwicklungen
Dokumentation der Rostocker Gesprche zum Seerecht 2004-2005. Peter Ehlers / Wilfried Erbguth (Eds.) (2006).
Nomos Verlag: Baden Baden. p.57-69.

BSH (BUNDESAMT FR SEESCHIFFFAHRT UND HYDROLOGIE) (2012). Ordnungswidrigkeits-Statistik 2010.

Inedited, intern information of the BSH from 02.01.2013.

DANISH MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT (2012). Economic Impact Assessment of a NOx Emission Control
Area in the North Sea. URL: http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2012/06/978-87-92903-20-4.pdf (Accessed
04.02.2013).

CALLIES, C. Prof. Dr. / RUFFERT, M. Prof. Dr. (Eds.) (2007). EUV/EGV Das Verfassungsrecht der Europischen
Union mit Europischer Grundrechtecharta Kommentar. 3rd ed. Verlag C.H.Beck: Mnchen.

European Commission (2001). EU focus on coastal zones. URL:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/2000brochure_en.pdf (Accessed 25.04.2013).

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (1995). URL:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1995:157:0001:0019:DE:PDF (Accessed 04.02.2013).

EUROPEAN UNION (2006). URL:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:125:0038:0042:DE:PDF (Accessed 14.01.2013).

FSI (FORSCHUNGSINFORMATIONSSYSTEM) (2012). Landstromversorgung in Hfen. URL:

http://www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/servlet/is/319184/ (Accessed 14.01.2013).

GCAPTAIN (2012). URL: http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Picture-5.png (Accessed 04.02.2012).

HENNING, F. (2011). SEEMP Umsetzung und wirtschaftlicher Nutzen. In: Schiff & Hafen. Nr.10/2011. p.14-17.

HERMA, M. (2006). Rostocker Schriften zum Seerecht und Umweltrecht 38:

Die rechtliche Ausgestaltung maritimer Sicherheit in Deutschland Unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der
verfassungskonformen Konzeption einer nationalen maritimen Sicherheitsstruktur. Nomos Verlag: Baden-Baden.

ICCT (THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION) (2013). URL:

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/CO2_intensity_shipping.png (Accessed 04.02.2013).

IMO (INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION) (Ed.) (2006). MARPOL Consolidated Edition 2006 Articles,
Protocols, Annexes, Unified Interpretations of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto. International Maritime Organization: London.

16
IMO (INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION) (2013a). Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Regulation 13. URL:
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-
%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx (Accessed 14.01.2013).

IMO (INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION) (2013b). Sulphur Oxides (SOx) Regulation 14. URL:
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Sulphur-oxides-(SOx)-
%E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx (Accessed 04.02.2013).

IMO (INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION) (2013c). Technical and Operational Measures. URL:
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Technical-and-Operational-
Measures.aspx (Accessed 04.02.2013).

IMO (2013d). URL: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx (Accessed

14.01.2013).

IMO (2013e). URL: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-

oxides-(NOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx (Accessed 04.02.2013).

KNIG, D. (2010). Schiffsemissionen Internationale Lsungen oder unilaterales Handeln. In: Hering, Ingelore /
Lagoni, Rainer / Paschke, Marian (Eds.). Nutzung und Ordnung der Meere Festgabe fr Peter Ehlers zum 65.
Geburtstag. LIT Verlag: Hamburg. p.121-138.

PBL (PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY) (2012). Assessment of the Environmental
Impacts and Health Benefits of a Nitrogen Emission Control Area in the North Sea. URL:
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2012-assessment-of-the-environmental-impacts-and-
health-benefits-of-a-nitrogen-emission-control-area-in-the-north-sea-500249001-v2_0.pdf (Accessed 04.02.2013).

SCHOLL, A. (2003). Die Befragung Sozialwissenschaftliche Methode und kommunikationswissenschaftliche

Anwendung. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH: Konstanz.

WOELKI, N. (2006). Hafenstaatkontrolle. In: Ehlers, P. / Erbguth, W. (Eds.) (2006). Rostocker Schriften zum
Seerecht und Umweltrecht 37: Hafenrecht und Schutz der Meere: neue Entwicklungen Dokumentation der
Rostocker Gesprche zum Seerecht 2004-2005. Nomos Verlag: Baden Baden. p.13-24.

YANMAR (2010). URL: http://www.yanmar.co.jp/en/marine/tips/imo/image/picIndex01.jpg (Accessed 04.02.2013).

Interviews:
Personal Communication with Mr. Dr. Martin Krger (Verband Deutscher Reeder) 03.01.2013 in Hamburg.

17
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW

Evaluation of
the interviews
concerning new
developments
in emission
control for
the shipping
sector

Compiled by Hanna Bergelt

18
 1. Introduction
Emission control is a topical and frequently discussed
subject these days. The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) has already established a number
of regulations concerning emission control in maritime
shipping (part of MARPOL Annex VI) with new
regulations coming into force in the coming years. The
most frequently discussed issues are the regulations
concerning SOx, NOx and CO2. To protect the
environmentally sensitive areas of the North Sea, with
its high marine traffic levels and associated volume of
emissions, the North Sea already has been designated
as a Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA). This
designation aims to protect the region against high
levels of sulphur emissions. Further discussions
regarding stricter global rules, and especially in such
control areas and the designation of a Nitrogen
Emission Control Area (NECA) in the North Sea, are
ongoing. However, are these developments realistic
and indeed necessary to protect the environment in
and around the North Sea? To elicit opinions on the
new developments for emission control in the shipping
sector and the recent regulations, a series of interviews
were conducted with various stakeholders in the
shipping industry.
Photo: www.mediaserver.hamburg.de/C. Spahrbier
To provide a comprehensive overview, experts in
different subject areas were consulted. The ship
owners were represented by Paul Altena, a member of
the Environmental Affairs Committee at the Royal
Association of Netherlands Shipowners and Ludovic
Laffineur, Environmental Policy Adviser to the Royal
Belgian Shipowners' Association. To include a
consideration of shipping science, the opinions of Prof.
Dr. Stefan Krger of the Institute of Ship Design and
Ship Safety at the Technical University Hamburg-
Harburg were sought. The policy perspective of the
European Union (EU) was provided by Torsten Klimke
of the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
(European Commission). In addition, Peter Van den
dries, Technical Environmental Manager of the Port of
Antwerp, and Dr. Ralf Sren Marquardt, Director of
Verband fr Schiffbau und Meerestechnik e.V., were
also interviewed. The interviews followed a variety of
guidelines to allow a flexible approach to gathering the
different expert perspectives, although all of the
interviews were based on common topics. During all
interviews questions were asked relating to current
regulations in emission control, planned developments
and future possibilities for reducing air emissions, and
the role of the EU in this area.
19
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW
2. Current and planned developments in emission control
MARPOL Annex VI became into effect in May 2005
with a number of regulations governing the most
important air pollutants, including sulphur (SOx),
nitrogen (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2). There have
also been other developments in recent years aimed at
protecting the environment from air emissions. The
ports themselves have instigated initiatives to provide
incentives for ship operators to reduce air emissions
and support the development of a greener shipping
industry. Some of the regulations and initiatives are still
in development and currently being reviewed by the
experts. The following sections will review the most
recently discussed issues.
a. Sulphur legislation
MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14 relates to the sulphur
content in fuel, which globally may not exceed 3.5%. It
is also possible to designate a SECA to protect a Sea
Area specifically against sulphur emissions. In SECAs,
such as the North or the Baltic Sea, the sulphur
content may not exceed 1.0%. By 2015 there will be a
further reduction to 0.1% sulphur content in fuel in the
SECAs, and by 2020 the sulphur content of fuel must
not exceed 0.5% globally. This global reduction to
0.5% will be reviewed in 2018 and probably postponed
to 2025 (cf. IMO 2013a).
The first reduction that will come into effect is the limit
of 0.1% sulphur content in fuel by 2015. It is now less
than two years before this regulation comes into force
in the North Sea SECA. The question remains is it
realistic for all ships to be using the low sulphur fuel or
investing in sulphur reducing techniques from this date
onwards? This is a serious concern as according to
Ludovic Laffineur, the availability of this type of fuel is
not guaranteed. It has been assumed that there will be
enough low sulphur fuel available, but it now seems
likely that the refining industry in Europe wont be able
to produce enough of this type of fuel. It also seems
likely that it will have to be imported from other
countries such as India (cf. pers. comm. Laffineur
2013). Paul Altena doesnt anticipate supply and
delivery problems as studies have shown the
worldwide refining industry will be able to produce the
20
amount of fuel that will be required (cf. pers. comm.
Altena 2013). Although this creates an element of
doubt for the various stakeholders as to whether there
will be enough fuel available, at present they are not
expecting critical delivery problems. According to the
experts the price of low sulphur fuel is predicted to be
higher than the current fuel in use. Ludovic Laffineur
and Paul Altena forecast a 20-30% or more price
difference (cf. pers. comm. Laffineur 2013 / Altena
2013). Torsten Klimke of the European Commission
(EC) acknowledges the serious problem of predicted
price increases (cf. pers. comm. Klimke 2013) but he
has also been critical of the stakeholders for waiting
too long before they started thinking about the
changes ahead. Many ship owners were reportedly
waiting to see if the regulation, which was adopted by
the IMO in 2008, would be changed or withdrawn (cf.
pers. comm. Klimke 2013).
Although ship owners can invest in scrubbers to
continue using the current fuel, installing scrubbers
also has some economic and technical consequences;
not every vessel is suitable for installing scrubbers (cf.
pers. comm. Altena 2013). The technology for the
scrubbers has already been developed but remains
unproven in a long-term study and involves
considerable expense. Another option for meeting the
new emission targets is to switch to Liquefied Natural
Gas (LNG). Paul Altena is convinced that the majority
of the members of the Royal Association of
Netherlands Shipowners will not be able to switch to
scrubbers or LNG because the investment is
prohibitively expensive at the moment. Ludovic
Laffineur considers scrubbers to be a possible solution
for the existing fleet, but he doesn't consider scrubbers
to be an effective long term solution. The problem at
present is the inability to assess the impact of wash
water on the scrubbers out in the North Sea. For new
ships it makes more sense to use LNG, but this may
only be a possibility in the future because at present
the LNG infrastructure is not extensive enough and the
technology is, in general, too expensive. For ferries
operating on short and fixed routes, LNG is available
now as an alternative fuel (cf. pers. comm. Laffineur
2013). Prof. Dr. Stefan Krger notes there are
companies who bought or built ships cheaply (for
example in China), who simply will not have the capital
either to pay for the expensive fuel or to invest in
scrubber technology. These ships will not be able to
operate in the SECAs after 2015. Only the larger
companies will have the resources to retrofit their fleet,
and their investment is expected to pay off after some
years. Scrubbers are very expensive but being able to
continue using the cheaper heavy fuel oil will
compensate for the investment (cf. pers. comm.
Krger 2013). However, this calculation will depend on
how actively a ship operates in a SECA (cf. pers.
comm. Marquardt 2013). Retrofitting ships with
scrubbers will have a positive impact on the shipping
industry because any substandard ships will not be
able to operate in the North Sea any longer (cf. pers.
comm. Krger 2013). It may transpire that as short sea
shipping in the North Sea is often in direct competition
with land based transport, there could be a shift in the
transportation of cargo from the sea to the land. This
potential scenario would have a negative impact on the
environment because transportation by sea produces
fewer emissions (cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013). In
general, the experts agree that compliance with the
0.1% ruling for sulphur content in fuel in the North Sea
is feasible from 2015, but they also agree that many of
the stakeholders were slow to react to the changes
ahead and to fully appreciate the consequences.
Alternatively, the possibility of ship owners being ready
to use the 0.5% sulphur content fuel by 2020 is also
being discussed. It is unclear at this stage if the
refining industry will be able to produce enough of the
0.5% fuel by 2020. The research highlighted varied
opinions on this and Ludovic Laffineur deplores the
fact that no scientific study has been undertaken on
this yet. As no such study exists at present, it is not
possible to evaluate the facilities producing the 0.5%
sulphur content fuel globally (cf. pers. comm. Laffineur
2013). It has been suggested that the mandatory IMO
study in 2018, to assess fuel availability, should be
brought forward (cf. pers. comm. Altena 2013). The
new regulations will mean the ports must provide the
low sulphur fuel. For larger ports with a significant
bunkering market, such as Antwerp, Rotterdam or
Hamburg, it is assumed that the provision of low
sulphur fuel will not pose too many problems as long
as the refining industry is capable of producing
enough fuel, although it is not clear at this stage what
the price will be (cf. pers. comm. Van den dries 2013).
At present 0.5% sulphur content fuel is generally
unavailable. According to Paul Altena although the
investment in the refining industry to increase
production of the 0.5% sulphur content fuel is not that
ambitious, availability remains unsure. He also expects
a dependence on scrubbers by 2020 (or 2025). The
estimated short-term costs for the scrubbers is
between three to five million Euros per ship, and it is
generally accepted that it will be prohibitively
expensive for ship owners to invest in scrubber
technology for older ships (cf. pers. comm. Altena
2013). Some experts suggest that the investment in a
scrubber may be feasible because it is believed that
scrubbers can be used over a long period. Prof. Dr.
Stefan Krger argues that scrubbers will emerge as
the prevailing technology because the low sulphur fuel
will be too expensive for ship owners and the LNG
infrastructure is not sufficiently developed. The
question is how much capacity the shipyards will have
to retrofit the ships. The opportunity to install scrubbers
on ships will have a positive impact on the shipyard
industry in Europe as these shipyards are
acknowledged experts in scrubber installation and the
construction of fuel efficient ships (cf. pers. comm.
Krger 2013). So the new regulations may have a
positive impact on the European shipbuilders industry
as a whole.
It is clear that by 2020 large quantities of the 0.5% fuel
will be required. Whether or not this new fuel will be
available in sufficient quantities remains in doubt. As a
result of this, the requirement to use 0.5% sulphur
content fuel will be reviewed by the IMO in 2018. The
review may result in a change to the 0.5% fuel
regulation coming into force in 2025.
The reduction in the sulphur content does not present
any technical problems but the switch to 0.1% sulphur
and 0.5% sulphur content in fuel will mean much
higher operating costs for the shipping industry. The
likely impact of this on financially weakened ship
owners cannot be assessed at present. Government
funding and financial aid to support these ship owners
21
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW
may be available in the coming years. In Finland the
government already supports a new LNG ferry but in
Germany, for example, at present the government
does not provide support for ship owners facing
financial hardship (cf. pers. comm. Marquardt 2013).
Without any form of financial assistance, the impact of
the sulphur limitation regulations will be an economic
challenge for the shipping industry (cf. pers. comm.
Marquardt 2013).
It is anticipated that by 2015 and 2020 there will be a
great deal of scrubber retrofitting in the existing fleet.
For financially constrained ship owners, or old ships for
which this high investment is not feasible, the use of
expensive low sulphur fuel will be the only way to
comply with the new limits. It is difficult to predict the
consequences this will have. Switching to LNG is a
possibility for some ship types, such as ferries or Ro-
Ro (roll-on, roll-off) ships, if other requirements are met.
b. EEDI and SEEMP
The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and the
Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) are
set out in the Regulations on Energy Efficiency for
Ships in Chapter 4 of the IMO's MARPOL Annex VI.
The EEDI is obligatory for all new ships and all ships
are required to operate with a SEEMP on board.
According to the IMO, the EEDI is the most important
technical measure. The aim is to facilitate energy
efficiency through the use of less polluting installations
and engines. The EEDI is a measure of the emission
levels for a given ship design under specified
operating conditions, and every for design there is a
baseline EEDI (cf. FSI 2012). Every five years the
baseline EEDI value for the different ship types will be
reduced, when further innovation and technical
developments in ship design and energy efficiency are
anticipated (cf. IMO 2013b).
Torsten Klimke of the EC considers the EEDI a very
useful tool because it is the first time that a measure
specifically focussed on CO2 emissions for a mode of
transport has been effective worldwide (cf. pers.
comm. Klimke 2013). Ludovic Laffineur is in agreement
22
with this and is of the opinion that the EEDI will help to
improve the efficiency of new ship builds (cf. pers.
comm. Laffineur 2013). However, Laffineur also thinks
that the EEDI is not strict enough for conventional ship
types (containers, bulkers, tankers) although
acknowledges it is more difficult for smaller ships to
comply with the EEDI regulations. Paul Altena also
supports this statement (cf. pers. comm. Altena 2013).
Prof. Dr. Stefan Krger adopts a more critical stance
and is of the opinion that the EEDI does not result in a
real CO2 saving. He considers the calculation used to
derive the index is incorrect and as a result this
regulation will have a disproportionate focus on
special, mainly smaller, ships with smaller payload
capacity. This will result in many of these ships being
taken out of circulation in the SECAs. The greater the
payload a ship has, and by definition the larger the
ship, the more CO2 it is allowed to produce under the
terms of the EEDI.
The outcome is that ships, especially smaller ones,
must operate within strict speed limits (cf. pers. comm.
Krger 2013). This will have a direct impact on the
operation of Ro-Ro vessels and ferries. Consequently,
at the last MEPC meeting in May 2013, a special
regulation for these specific ship types was agreed on,
permitting them to travel faster if they have been
optimized appropriately. Prof. Dr. Stefan Krger
describes the EEDI as pointless and wonders why the
EEDI was adopted (cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013). Dr.
Ralf Sren Marquardt also notes that the EEDI wont
change much with respect to the levels of CO2
emissions in the coming years. The baseline index is
not very ambitious in relation to the existing fleet.
Indeed most of the ships currently operating in the
North Sea already meet the baseline conditions and
replacement new ships do not require significant
modifications. Although the EEDI is scientifically
flawed, the worst mistakes concerning the Ro-Ro
vessels and ferries were addressed on the last MEPC
meeting (cf. pers. comm. Marquardt 2013).
The SEEMP is an operational measure aimed at
reducing the air emissions of a ship. It provides the
basis of a management plan for energy efficiency,
which should be available on board every ship, and
includes a number of measures that should result in
energy savings. The operating procedures on board
ship should be adapted to comply with the best
practice recommendations laid out in the plan to
reduce energy consumption on board. However,
complying with the SEEMP is not obligatory. Ludovic
Laffineur considers the SEEMP to be a generic
document but notes that it can and will help to improve
awareness about energy efficiency on board, so in that
sense it is a useful tool for reducing fuel consumption
(cf. pers. comm. Laffineur 2013). Paul Altena also
appreciates that the SEEMP increases awareness of
energy efficiency on board and the problems of air
emissions for ship owners and employees alike. In
addition, the SEEMP is considered to be flexible
enough for small companies who have some freedom
to decide how strict their interpretation and
implementation of the plan should be (cf. pers. comm.
Altena 2013). Dr. Ralf Sren Marquardt thinks that the
SEEMP makes more sense than the EEDI, even if
complying with the plan is not obligatory, as it applies
to a greater number of ships and it has the potential to
improve the operation of ships and their energy
efficiency (cf. pers. comm. Marquardt 2013). Prof. Dr.
Krger and Dr. Marquardt both consider that it would
be much more useful to implement a system of
taxation of CO2 emissions. If producing a great deal of
CO2 becomes prohibitively expensive, ship owners
and operators will have to review their current
procedures to reduce emissions (cf. pers. comm.
Krger 2013 / Marquardt 2013).
c. Port incentives
There are a number of port incentives aimed at
encouraging the operation of more environmentally
friendly ships. A common incentive is the
Environmental Ship Index (ESI), which many European
ports currently participate in. The ESI offers a reduction
in port fees of between 5-10% for environmentally
friendly ships. Paul Altena thinks the saving of a few
hundred euros at one port is not much of an incentive
for the ship owners, but if a ship operates between two
participating ports then the combined savings will
make a difference. The ferry industry in particular,
operating along fixed routes between ports, stands to
benefit from this system (cf. pers. comm. Altena 2013).
However, this approach does not reimburse the ship
owners for the additional costs they incurred ensuring
their ships meet the ESI benchmark, and it is primarily
a public relations exercise for the participating
harbours and the ship owners (cf. pers. comm. Altena
2013). Ludovic Laffineur is in agreement with this
assessment of the incentive system (cf. pers. comm.
Laffineur 2013). Paul Altena argues that it is a good
initiative from the ports but the shipping industry
should not expect the ports to pay for the greening of
the shipping industry (cf. pers. comm. Altena 2013).
Peter Van den dries of the Port of Antwerp considers
the ESI approach to be a successful project and one
that the Port of Antwerp is happy to support, but he
also sees it as a financial exercise for the port. Every
year more and more ships are using the ESI incentive
and this is having a direct financial impact on the Port
of Antwerps budget increases. Peter Van den dries
notes that the Port of Antwerp supports the project
because ports have an interest in reducing their air
emission levels; the ESI is one way to encourage ship
owners and operators to reduce their emissions. He
stresses that the Port of Antwerp is an environmentally
aware port that considers sustainability to be an
important competitive advantage and he supports the
shipping industry in their efforts to reduce air
emissions. However, the impact of the ESI incentive
offered by ports should not be overestimated; whether
the ESI and other incentives offered are lucrative and
feasible for the ship owners depends on the amount of
the incentive and the investment costs associated with
upgrading the ships. Some ship owners rely on the
financial incentives, but for others it is nothing more
than a small, but welcome, contribution (cf. pers.
comm. Van den dries 2013).
In general port incentives to reduce air emissions are a
welcome initiative for the shipping industry. However,
the ports must plan and manage their own budgets
accordingly and their incentives can only encourage
the greening of the shipping industry. The
responsibility for the reduction of air emissions lies
primarily with the ship owners.
23
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW
3. Ongoing possibilities and developments to
reduce air emissions
Emission regulation in the shipping industry is, by
comparison to other environmental initiatives, a
relatively new subject. During the last few years there
have been several suggestions and amendments with
respect to the best way to reduce emissions.
Challenges remain for the shipping community not only
at the international level but also for the individual ship
owners to design their fleet to be as environmentally
friendly as possible. This will deliver not only ecological
benefits but also economic benefits. The following
section will discuss some of the new developments in
the shipping industry that are starting to have an
impact.
a. NECA
In 2012, a NECA was designated around the coast of
the United States (US) and Canada, a development
that was only possible when the two bordering states
cooperated in response to a request from the IMO.
Within the NECA there are strict emission levels for
Figure 1: Limit values for NOx emissions
Tier Ship construction Total weighted cycle emission limit (g/kWh)
date on or after n= engines rated speed (rpm)
n < 130
I 1.1.2000 17.0
II 1.1.2011 14.4
III 1.1.2016 3.4
Source: Own amount, data base IMO (2013c)
24
NOx. At present the North American Emission Control
Area is the only designated NECA in the world. Since
2010, there have been ongoing discussions between
the North Sea states to apply for a NECA in the North
Sea and the English Channel. The proposed area is
already a designated SECA, so the additional
designation of a NECA will mean further reductions in
emission levels. From 2016, the Tier III limits will apply
in the NECAs for new built ships; this will mean a
drastic reduction of the NOx limits (see Figure 1).
At the last MEPC in May 2013, the proposed limits for
Tier III were postponed to 2021. Dr. Ralf Sren
Marquardt and Prof. Dr. Stefan Krger both consider
this to be a negative decision for the shipping industry.
Prof. Dr. Krger referred to it as 'an absolute disaster'.
Some stakeholders in the shipping industry have
invested a great deal of money in the development of
new technology and now those investments are in vain
(cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013). Dr. Marquardt of the
VSM also criticizes the IMO's decision. If the start
dates for new regulations had been agreed after a
lengthy and detailed consideration of the technical and
n = 130-1999 n 2000
45.n-0.2 9.8
e.g., 720 rpm 12.1
44.n-0.23 7.7
e.g., 720 rpm 9.7
9.n-0.2 2.0
e.g., 720 rpm 2.4
economic feasibility, this decision has to be respected
to ensure regulatory and investment security for the
industry. What is happening now is counterproductive
for the whole development process, as it inhibits the
necessary innovation within the shipping industry to
implement ambitious reduction targets for air emissions
(cf. pers. comm. Marquardt 2013). The status of the
North Sea NECA is very different to that of its North
American counterpart.
Peter Van den dries notes that the Port of Antwerp
welcomes the designation of a NECA in principle (and
all measures to reduce air emissions), as long as it
does not result in a shift in transportation to more road
traffic. According to the Impact Assessment, the North
Sea NECA would not have a significant impact on the
rerouting of ships. However, Van den dries is critical of
the economic impact assessment in that it did not
evaluate what a NECA combined with the stricter rules
in SECAs by 2015 will mean for the North Sea (cf.
pers. comm. Van den dries 2013). Paul Altena is also
critical of this and he supports the new study which
looks into the North Sea NECA and the new SOx
legislation in the same area. This new study has yet to
produce any results, so it cannot be determined yet if it
is a good approach for designating a North Sea NECA.
Paul Altena also notes that the economic and
environmental impact assessments for the NECA are
quite positive, but for him these reports were not
detailed enough and are fundamentally flawed. For
example, the studies investigated 37 different
scenarios but do not include any cross sector analysis.
The study also ignores what happens if some of the
scenarios take place at the same time. As a result of
this and other reasons, Paul Altena says he cannot
advise the members of the Royal Association of
Netherlands Shipowners to react positively to a North
Sea NECA (cf. pers. comm. Altena 2013). However, it
goes without saying that the NOx emissions in the
North Sea area should be reduced in keeping with
other modes of transport. One of the many problems
associated with the NECA according to Paul Altena, is
that the operating costs of a vessel complying with Tier
III restrictions are around 300.000 euros extra per year.
These vessels will not be able to compete with a
vessel complying with Tier II restrictions. This will
inevitably mean the ship owners will stop buying new
vessels from 2016 onwards because by then new
vessels will have to comply with Tier III (cf. pers.
comm. Altena 2013). Along with his Belgian colleague
Ludovic Laffineur, Paul Altena agrees that the North
Sea NECA would make sense if there were also a
Baltic Sea NECA because nearly 30% of the vessels in
the North Sea also operate in the Baltic Sea (cf. pers.
comm. Altena 2013 / Laffineur 2013). Ludovic Laffineur
also speculates that ship owners will try to retain their
old ships as long as possible as it will be cheaper to
operate them in the new NECA. This would mean there
could be older ships operating in the NECA and that
would have a negative impact on the North Sea (cf.
pers. comm. Laffineur 2013). Laffineur is also uncertain
about the technical situation. In his opinion the
technology to achieve Tier III limits with a 2-stroke
engine is not fully developed yet (cf. pers. comm.
Laffineur 2013).
Dr. Marquardt comments that the NECA will benefit the
North Sea but argues that it should be extended to
cover all European waters, and he is critical of the
different standards that exist for European waters and
the accompanying risk of distorting competition in
Europe. Dr. Marquardt would prefer one regulatory
system for all European waters arguing that Europe is
a strong economic region should set and enforce its
own standards (cf. pers. comm. Marquardt 2013).
Torsten Klimke comments that now it is the time to
examine carefully the conditions of the NECA and to
identify and address any problems before adoption (cf.
pers. comm. Klimke 2013). An air of uncertainty
prevails in many of the discussions about the North
Sea NECA. This suggests that the stakeholders need
more scientific information to understand the proposals
and what's involved. If uncertainties remain when the
NECA comes into effect further reviews will be required
and the overall success of the project will remain in
question.
25
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW

b. LNG for LNG is uncertain. If the shipping industry decides

to use more LNG, then the price will grow up and it will
Stricter emission limits have resulted in an increase in be difficult to predict if LNG will remain competitive in
the use of LNG as an alternative to ship traditional fuel. the future (cf. pers. comm. Altena 2013). Prof. Dr.
The increase in the price of fuel, especially low sulphur Stefan Krger considers that the price of LNG could
fuel, makes LNG an attractive option for the ship be much higher in 10 - 20 years and he also advises
owners. LNG has the dual advantage of less harmful the stakeholders to be mindful of safety on board. He
environmental emissions and a high performance warns that the complexity of LNG infrastructure on
capability (cf. Pospiech 2012:28). Whether or not LNG board a ship could lead to unforeseen safety
will emerge as a viable fuel alterative for the North Sea problems. Prof. Dr. Stefan Krger recommends the
shipping industry over the next 10 - 20 years remains early adoption of rigorous safety checks on board LNG
to be seen. Ludovic Laffineur, Peter Van den dries and vessels to avoid endangering the passengers and
Torsten Klimke agree that in 10 - 20 years LNG would crew (cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013).
be a feasible global solution for new build ships. The
problem with LNG is that the supporting infrastructure
is not yet extensive enough. Ludovic Laffineur notes
that the EC is doing its best to support the c. Slow steaming
development of the LNG infrastructure and a number
Slow steaming essentially means a reduction in a
of ports already provide access to LNG (cf. pers.
ship's operating speedwith a reduction in speed,
comm. Laffineur 2013). Peter Van den dries also thinks
fewer emissions are produced. If a ship reduces its
the LNG infrastructure will develop soon because the
speed by 10%, the engine power is reduced by 27%,
EU supports this through the Clean Power for
resulting in an energy saving of approximately 19% (cf.
Transport proposal. The Port of Antwerp already
CE Delft 2012:7). The following figure illustrates how
provides LNG for shipping by truck and from 2015
much fuel can be saved when speed is reduced. A
onwards there will be a LNG bunkering vessel
reduction of 25 - 22 knots leads to a fuel reduction of
operating in the port (cf. pers. comm. Van den dries
about 30% (figure 2) and a corresponding reduction in
2013). At present LNG vessels can only operate on a
CO2 and SOx emissions. NOx emissions can also be
restricted network of routes as they rely on ports that
reduced by operating at slower speeds (cf. CE Delft
can provide LNG. As a result these vessels are less
2012:7).
flexible and less commercially attractive, limiting the
options for the ship owners (cf. pers. comm. Altena All experts agree that any official speed limit for ships
2013). would be detrimental to the industry. Torsten Klimke
warns that a general speed limit could have a negative
Paul Altena also warns that the use of LNG will not
impact on competition within the shipping industry
reduce the NOx emissions sufficiently to comply with
compared to other modes of transport. General speed
Tier III regulations. However, Altena remains hopeful
limits would also be detrimental for shipping services
that the technology will evolve in the coming years and
requiring a short delivery time and this could lead to a
LNG could be a viable alternative for vessels operating
shift towards road transportation (cf. pers. comm.
in a NECA. Either way, there are already incentives to
Klimke 2013). Certain ship types, constructed for a
use LNG because the emissions of CO2 and SOx are
particular cargo, are dependent on the flexibility they
much lower (cf. pers. comm. Altena 2013). LNG will be
have with respect to speed. Ferries, for example, must
particularly relevant for new build ships as the costs of
operate to a time schedule and it would be difficult, if
retrofitting an existing vessel to use LNG are too high.
not impossible, for the ferry operators to meet the
Ludovic Laffineur comments that the costs associated
demands of the schedule if the vessels were subject to
with building a LNG vessel are much higher than the
a speed limit (cf. pers. comm. Altena 2013). At present
normal price, and he would like to see more flexibility
the need to travel fast is not as urgent because of the
from the banks and financial support from member
current economic situation. According to Paul Altena it
states or the EC to encourage early adoption (cf. pers.
should be up to the industry to decide what, or even if,
comm. Laffineur 2013). Altena also notes that the price

26
speed limits should be applied. A reduction in speed
does not automatically result in a reduction of the
overall emissions. Vessels are optimized for a specific
speed; some ships operating at that speed will
produce fewer emissions overall compared to other
vessels that are required to maintain payload capacity
when sailing at slower speeds (cf. pers. comm. Altena
2013). Ludovic Laffineur notes that even if the market
improves, many ships still will use slow steaming
because it has a positive impact on their fuel bills.
However Laffineur also notes that some ships are more
expensive to operate on a daily basis so it makes
sense for them to complete each journey as quickly as
possible. It's not just the fuel bill that has an impact on
the running costs of a ship (cf. pers. comm. Laffineur
2013).
Figure 2: Fuel consumption in relation to a ships speed
Source: Hamburg Sd 2012
Prof. Dr. Krger does not support the concept of long
term slow steaming. At present, slow steaming helps to
reduce the overcapacity in the market, but it is not
economical to install a powerful main engine and then
use only a small portion of its available power. He is
critical of ship owners who are ordering vessels at
present that could operate under slow steaming, but
have a high reserve power capacity to operate at
higher speeds in the future. Technically a vessel can,
for example, be optimized for 18 or 22 knots, but not
for both speeds at the same time. As an interim
solution is not feasible, much depends on the ship
owners (cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013).
27
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW

d. Onshore Power Supply (OPS) exemption on OPS (cf. pers. comm. Klimke 2013).
Although this could propel the development of the OPS
Onshore Power Supply (OPS) systems enable ships to infrastructure, the question remains where the energy
use land-based energy while in port. The for the OPS will come from and if developing this
representatives from the ship owner associations system really is a benefit for the environment.
believe that the essential on board modifications to use
OPS are too expensive, so it is not clear at this stage
exactly what the benefits are (cf. pers. comm. Altena /
Laffineur 2013). However both Ludovic Laffineur and e. Further possibilities
Paul Altena see the OPS system as an option for
Prof. Dr. Stefan Krger provides one other option for
ferries, vessels that consume a great deal of energy in
reducing air emissions within the shipping industry
port. For other ships, such as container ships, Laffineur
the fuel becomes so expensive that the ship owners
does not see any benefit in using OPS systems (cf.
and the industry in general will be forced to think about
pers. comm. Laffineur 2013). Torsten Klimke notes that
fuel economies. Of course the fuel still has to be
the EU wants to support the OPS system and would
affordable for the majority of the ship owners. This may
like to standardize it through the Clean Power for
result in many older ships with low emission standards
Transport proposal. If the cost-benefit and
disappearing from the market, which should have a
environmental advantages of this system are obvious
positive effect on the industry and the environment (cf.
at a local level then ports should be obliged to provide
pers. comm. Krger 2013).
OPS systems (cf. pers. comm. Klimke 2013). Dr.
Marquardt and Prof. Dr. Krger also comment that the Another possibility for reducing air emissions is to build
installation of an OPS system is not prohibitively more efficient ships. Prof. Dr. Stefan Krger considers
expensive (cf. pers. comm. Marquardt 2013 / Krger that the European shipping industry may produce
2013). Prof. Dr. Krger considers the problem to be a more 'intelligent' ships that will be more efficient.
lack of standardized connections to the electricity Ludovic Laffineur also proposes additional propeller
supply worldwide, and he recommends the and trim optimizations for the ships (cf. pers. comm.
development a global unified infrastructure as an initial Laffineur 2013). There is also additional equipment that
requirement for the successful adoption of OPS can be installed on board to help reduce the
systems (cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013). emissions. For example, installing an engine
configured for optimum head utilisation, operating on
However, it all depends on the source of the energy for
the waste head produced by other enginesin effect
the OPS systems as to whether it will be energy
using this source of energy for free. Installations like
efficient to use OPS. If the energy comes from
this would require additional investment, but if the fuel
renewable sources, then it is a viable alternative for
becomes even more expensive, the investment would
reducing emissions in port areas. For larger ports wind
be worth it for the ship owners. Although there are
power is too unreliable to be the only source of energy,
many other types of equipment that can help reduce
so it will probably be necessary to build new power
air emissions, pursuing international regulations to
plants to provide a guaranteed supply. This could
expand the use of such equipment is, according to
produce more emissions than the ships in the port (cf.
Prof. Dr. Krger, not practical and is not recommended
pers. comm. Krger 2013 / Klimke 2013). However,
(cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013). The best option is to
despite these problems Torsten Klimke assesses the
make the fuel more expensive, forcing the industry to
expansion of OPS systems as encouraging. As the
develop innovative ways to reduce air emissions and
technology is developed and extended, this will lay the
encourage ship owners to invest in the new technology
foundations for using OPS with renewable energies in
(cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013).
the future (cf. pers. comm. Klimke 2013). In the EU
there is a proposal for an obligatory eight years tax

28
Dr. Ralf Sren Marquardt also sees the use of
hydrogen as a possibility but this technology is not yet
mature enough to be considered as a viable
alternative. Although the transportation of hydrogen is
difficult at present, it has the potential to be a shipping
fuel in the future (cf. pers. comm. Marquardt 2013).
Torsten Klimke sees potential in other alternative fuels
such as methanol, which has already been tested in
Sweden. However, this will probably only be feasible at
the local level (cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013).
Another possibility is weather routing, meaning a ship
follows the route offering the best conditions. Voyage
optimization like this would require some flexibility from
the ship owners as the ship could not take always the
shortest route. However, choosing a route with better
sailing conditions should lead to a reduction in fuel
consumption and air emissions (cf. pers. comm.
Laffineur 2013).
At present many of these alternative options for
emission reduction are unpopular because of the
economic situation. Many ship owners are currently
unable to invest in new technology so many of the
options considered in this report would be unworkable
(cf. pers. comm. Klimke 2013). However, in better
economic times these new developments could
potentially revolutionize the shipping industry.
The role of the EU in emission
control
The involvement of the EU in the shipping sector is not,
contrary to what many stakeholders believe, a new
development. Twenty years ago the shipping industry
was the subject of an EU White Paper. The EU
maritime transport strategy has been in effect since
2009 and is due to run to 2018. The EU also produced
a White Paper on Transport in 2011. Torsten Klimke of
the EC stresses that both shipping and air traffic are
international issues and are high on the international
political agenda (cf. pers. comm. Klimke 2013). Some
of the interviewed experts are anticipating a monitoring
and verification system for CO2 emissions from the EU.
This could be similar to the monitoring, reporting and
verification system from the IMO, which is also
expected around the same time. Paul Altena notes this
could be frustrating for the IMO if the EU also
proposes a similar system. Altena would prefer central
discussions within the IMO on this subject (cf. pers.
comm. Altena 2013). Ludovic Laffineur also comments
that the Royal Belgian Shipowners' Association fully
supports the monitoring, reporting and verification
system but from an international perspective. They
note it would be easy to identify a non-compliant
vessel but that could be due to stricter rules in the EU
for the shipping sector (cf. pers. comm. Laffineur
2013). At the same time Laffineur confirms that in some
cases it is beneficial that the EU has the flexibility to
make regulations for the North or the Baltic Sea, but
these rules need to make sense for the shipping
industry throughout Europe (cf. pers. comm. Laffineur
2013).
Prof. Dr. Stefan Krger is in favour of the EU getting
involved in this issue and notes it would be good to
include the shipping sector in the guidelines for
emission trading as the EU is such a large economic
area and can afford to adopt stricter rules. This would
lead to an increase in fuel costs, something Prof. Dr.
Krger is generally in favour of. At the same time Prof.
Dr. Krger understands the concerns of the ship
owners that regulations should be adopted on an
international level (cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013). In
general, the experts support solutions for international
emission control proposed by the IMO. However,
Torsten Klimke emphasizes that the EU initiatives
concerning emission reduction are also intended to
support the IMO processes and may be an important
starting point for a discussion within the IMO. The EU
is willing to refrain from regional actions if the IMO
demonstrates sufficient progress on the matter. In
general the EU supports regulation on an international
level, but there is also a general responsibility for the
EU concerning CO2 emissions. If the international
community cannot agree on reduction measures, the
EU has already expressed a willingness to consider
regional measures (cf. pers. comm. Klimke 2013).
29
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW
4. Conclusion
All of the measures discussed in this report may help
reduce ship air emissions, a goal that is part of the
sustainable development of the shipping sector.
However all stakeholders must consider the adverse
economic situation the shipping industry currently finds
itself in, and all those involved must seek a balance
between environmental and economic development.
By comparison, the shipping industry still produces
less pollution than other modes of transport. However,
all interviewed representatives from the ship owners
associations, the shipping industry and the politicians
agree that the emissions in this sector can and should
be reduced.
In conclusion, Dr. Marquardt notes that the
development of a clean fuel is crucial to solving the
problem of air emissions in the shipping sector (cf.
pers. comm. Marquardt 2013). This requires more
research, both internationally and also at a regional
level, to find solutions for specific regions. Prof. Dr.
Krger argues there is need for a global energy plan. If
such a plan were available, the infrastructure for LNG
for example, could be extended in the most cost
effective manner (cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013).
Prof. Dr. Krger is of the opinion that the discussions
within the IMO are not really scientifically based, and
30
he feels the regulations are being led by politicians,
with the technical issues and opportunities often
ignored. He is critical of the IMO working groups and
feels that the engineers are underrepresented, which
he argues could result in mistakes being made like an
incorrect EEDI calculation. Before any discussion
about new regulation begins, a thorough review of the
issue should be undertaken by the appropriate
professionals to confirm if the regulation is relevant and
appropriate (cf. pers. comm. Krger 2013).
This report shows that there has been a gradual
improvement in emission control in the North Sea. In
the coming years new regulations will come into force
and the impact of these regulations will be reviewed.
Paul Altena concludes it is important that the same
regulations are enforced globally. If the rules and
regulations covering special areas like the North Sea
are too strict, he is afraid that the ship owners will be
tempted to flag out (cf. pers. comm. Altena 2013). This
suggests that next to the environmental considerations,
the economic condition of the shipping industry in the
North Sea should be taken into account to facilitate
further developments and investments in the greening
of the shipping industry in Europe.
5. Literature

CE DELFT (Ed.) (2012). Regulated Slow Steaming in Maritime Transport An Assessment of Options, Costs and
Benefits. CE Delft: Delft.

FSI (FORSCHUNGSINFORMATIONSSYSTEM) (2012). Landstromversorgung in Hfen. URL:

http://www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/servlet/is/319184/ (Access: 14.01.2013).

HAMBURG SD (2012). URL:

http://www.hamburgsud.de/group/de/corporatehome/qualityenvironment/shippingoperations/slowsteaming/slowst
eaming.html (Access: 04.02.2013).

IMO (INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION) (2013a). Sulphur Oxides (SOx) Regulation 14. URL:
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Sulphur-oxides-(SOx)-
%E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx (Access: 04.02.2013).

IMO (INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION) (2013j). Technical and Operational Measures. URL:
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Technical-and-Operational-
Measures.aspx (Access: 04.02.2013).

IMO (INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION) (2013c). URL:

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-
%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx (Access: 04.02.2013).

PROSPIECH, P. (2012). Mit Erdgas durch Norwegens Fjorde. In: HANSA International Maritime Journal.
149.Jahrgang. Nr.4. p.28-29.

Personal Communications:
ALTENA, Paul (2013) interviewed on May 6th 2013 in Rotterdam (NL).

KLIMKE, Torsten (2013) interviewed on May 7th 2013 in Brussels (BEL).

Krger, Prof. Dr. Stefan (2013) interviewed on May 23rd 2013 in Hamburg (GER).

LAFFINEUR, Ludovic (2013) interviewed on May 7th 2013 in Antwerp (BEL).

MARQUARDT, Dr. Ralf Sren (2013) interviewed on May 29th 2013 in Hamburg (GER).

VAN DEN DRIES, Peter (2013) interviewed on May 7th 2013 in Antwerp (BEL).

31
THE CHALLENGE OF EMISSION CONTROL IN MARITIME LAW

CNSS: Competitive Marine Transport

Services and Reduction of Emissions
a North Sea Model

www.cnss.no

Photo front page: Port of Antwerp

LEAD BENEFICIARY