Islanders And Protestors Reject UN Shipping Climate Proposal As ‘Greenwashing’

Next week’s vote at the United Nation’s Shipping Regulator, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), was facing further acrimony on Sunday evening.

Protestors and representatives from Pacific Island nations have united in calling for international delegates to reject the proposal being put forward by the UN shipping agency, which they described as ‘greenwashing.’

This was marked by a dramatic fire-burning symbolic Viking burial ceremony outside the IMO’s Headquarters in London on Sunday November 15, to highlight the backtracking of the global shipping industry against the Paris Climate Agreement.

Country representatives are meeting virtually next week to decide on carbon dioxide emissions for the next decade. However, the proposals have been universally criticized by all major environmental groups for reneging on both the Paris Agreement as well as a voluntary agreement that the shipping industry had agreed to in 2018 to reduce carbon emissions.

The current proposal is expected to increase carbon dioxide emissions by around 15% over the next decade where the world is seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. With global shipping being the world’s sixth largest emitter of carbon dioxide, having strong action from the industry is critical to avoid the planet hitting a tipping point of no return that will lead to runaway climate transformation.

Islanders united in protest

Representatives from the Pacific Island nation of the Marshall Islands have also called for the vote to be rejected.

The vote is being held by the IMO’s Marine Pollution Environment Committee (MEPC), which Japan chairs, and who has sponsored the Paris Climate Agreement-breaking proposal.

On October 21, Ambassador Albon Ishoda from the Marshall Islands said, “We as the Republic of the Marshall Islands will call to reject the short-term measure proposal up for adoption next week in the MEPC as it fails to reduce emissions before 2023, it will not peak emissions as soon as possible, and it will not set ship CO2 emissions on a pathway consistent with the Paris Agreement 1.5C goal. We call on all countries who signed the Tony de Brum Declaration to reject this proposal as a measure incapable of achieving our long-term climate goals in the IMO”. 

The Tony de Brum Declaration was the announcement by the Marshall Island’s stateman that galvanized forty nations to sign a pledge in 2017 to reduce shipping emissions to stay within the Paris Agreement. It was made at the ‘One Planet’ Summit organized by President Macron in Paris in December 2017.

This declaration was largely credited with the deal that 100 countries voted on in 2018 to commit global shipping to remain within targets set by the Paris Agreement by 2050.

Macron criticized for climate U-turn

Notable shipping countries who signed include the U.K., France, Germany, Australia, Malta, Canada, Denmark, Greece.

The 2018 vote was hailed as a ‘historic agreement for global shipping’ to essentially become carbon neutral by 2050.

However, in the two years since then, a rear-guard action fought by Japan and supported by countries like Norway, have sought to undermine the carbon emissions targets that had been proposed. Japan holds the most influential seat at the International Maritime Organization as Chair of the Environment Committee and also has many of its ships registered in ‘Flags of Convenience’ nations like Panama, who are often seen as representing Japanese corporate interests.

French President Emmanuel Macron has been particularly criticized for performing a major u-turn on global shipping. President Macron urged urgent action on climate in December 2017 and signed up to the Tony de Brum Declaration along with 40 other nations to reduce climate emissions.

Yet in a surprise move at the October 2020 UN shipping talks at the IMO, France had become an advocate of the measure that would see emissions rise by almost 15% over the next decade, with no enforcement of any penalty for ships breaking these commitments.

Japan spearheading high-pollution measures

Shipping is a critical industry for Japan, with the three largest Japanese shipping lines combined would be the largest shipping company in the world, 40% larger than Danish giant, Maersk. They have already been preliminary talks to combine container ship operations. So a strong climate commitment by the IMO would dent Japan’s corporate interests.

Rather than having any penalties for ships that do not meet emission targets, Japan’s proposals has called for the targets to be voluntary. They are also based on a regime of ‘certificates,’ which is one of the main reasons that led to the major oil spill in Mauritius this summer by a Japanese owned and operated vessel.

New technologies mean that the actual emissions from ships can be monitored, and should form part of the solution for how shipping reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

UK’s leadership on ship emissions?

With bold statements by Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for a green recovery emerging from the Covid-19 crisis, the UK’s position will also be closely watched next week. The UK is just weeks away from exiting the European Union, and it will be interesting to see whether Britain sets its own emission standards, or tries to mirror that of the EU and the United States.

The UK was also a signatory to the Marshall Island’s 2017 Tony de Brum declaration.

Speaking ahead of next week’s IMO vote, a spokesperson for the UK Department for Transport said on Friday, “Our maritime sector is vital to the success of the UK’s economy, but emissions from these sectors are a global challenge requiring an international solution.

The UK remains fully committed to the Initial IMO Strategy, agreed in April 2018. Our focus now is on securing a good outcome on short-, mid- and long-term measures that will begin to reduce emissions from international shipping.”

The spokesperson went further to outline Britain’s bold push for a green maritime sector. 

“Our Clean Maritime Plan sets an ambitious vision for a zero emissions sector. Through this we will not only help turn the tide on emissions, but also propel new opportunities for innovation by making the UK a global hub for the new, green maritime sector.”

A changed world

It is also important that in the month since the last round of talks, the world has changed.

The last round of talks at the IMO concluded on October 23, and was widely criticized for measures seen as ‘greenwashing’ climate commitments. At the time, the U.S. was in the depth of a tight election race, and the Japan had a new Prime Minister who was facing a domestic scandal for political interference in science and academic freedom.

However, since that time, there have been two important changes in the world.

Biden-Harris victory

The Biden-Harris victory celebrated on November 7, is likely to result in much stronger U.S. leadership in global shipping. The U.S. retains a powerful ‘Tier A’ status as one of ten nations holding this position in the influential IMO Executive Council.

Global shipping was specifically called out by President-elect Biden and Vice President elect-Harris, with a pledge to, “Lead the world to lock in enforceable international agreements to reduce emissions in global shipping.”

The incoming Presidential team is likely to be following next week’s vote carefully. If nations choose not to vote for enforceable commitments in line with the Paris Agreement, it is likely that the U.S., may opt for stricter regional shipping agreements, in line with the EU and U.K. In such a case, this may lead to the fragmentation of global shipping with vessels needing to meet a patchwork of regional agreements.

It would also be an indication of which countries the new U.S. Administration may see as allies in the fight against climate as well as other strategic U.S. issues.

Japan’s climate pledge

The second big development was the new Japanese Prime Minister, Yoshihide Suga, who made Japan’s first climate pledge to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050.

This pledge matches China’s carbon neutral pledge in September, and South Korea followed up with its own pledge on October 28.

Given that global shipping emits as much greenhouse gas as the entire Japanese economy combined, and Japan holds both the key role as Chair of the IMO’s Environmental Committee and have been the strongest advocate for weaker proposals at the IMO, this will be the first test of Prime Minister’s Suga’s policies.

If Japan chooses to support the weaker proposal, it would undermine the authenticity of Prime Minister Suga’s climate commitments.

Japan has been heavily criticized for its role in the Wakashio oil spill in Mauritius in August, through a series of actions that have been seen as covering up the true extent of the damage, and greenwashing to protect Japanese corporate interests. Some of the actions of Japanese officials in Mauritius have been seen as undermining the scientific work and evidence collecting that Mauritius needed to do both to understand the full impact of the oil spill as well as to file its claim in the international law courts for compensation for the damage caused.

With both the Biden-Harris election and Japan’s new position on climate neutrality by 2050, it will be interesting to see whether any delegations have changed their position for next week’s vote.

Global shipping in need of a radical shakeup

The global shipping industry is in need of radical change and faces major disruption.

Over 400,000 sailors have been stuck at sea, many for over a year in cramped conditions, forcing the UN Secretary General and the Pope to intervene, calling the crisis a ‘humanitarian crisis.’

CEOs and shipowners have been criticized for not doing enough for crew stuck on vessels, undermining both safety and environmental standards in order to push for higher profits in the industry.

The entire industry has relied on a network of six ‘Flags of Convenience’ nations (essentially offshore havens for shipping) that have allowed for shadowy business practices that have reduced taxation, safety and environmental standards in the industry, with little to no regulation. This may be an area for the G20 and OECD to look into given their unfinished work on offshore tax havens and climate change.

The International Maritime Organization is largely seen has having been captured by global shipping interests and acting on their behalf, rather than in the interests of sailors, coastal or island nations or the environment. This has raised questions about why the IMO is permitted to use the United Nations insignia at all if it is more of a trade body than acting in the spirit of the United Nations Charter.

With major economies such as the U.S., China, the EU, the U.K., Japan, South Korea, all making bold climate commitments, there is likely to be major policy decisions in the next few years that will determine the course of global shipping industry.

This will also have implications for regulators like the IMO, whose Secretary General, Kitack Lim, was re-elected for a final four year term starting in January 2020.

The very legitimacy and credibility of the IMO is resting on next week’s vote. Although it is an important vote, environmentalists have already thought of alternatives paths of influence. It is clear that major trading nations like the EU and U.S., may start to develop regional emission frameworks.

Already pressure is mounting on banks and ship financing companies to see what steps they can take to decarbonize shipping, such as the Poseidon Principles. However, the environmental sector is littered with many public declarations by large corporations to alleviate media pressure, but which are never held to account by public bodies. Much stronger national regulations may need to be introduced.

So it is more a question for delegates at the IMO next week whether they wish to signal their intent to resist inevitable change and be judged for being on the wrong side of history, or recognize the opportunity ahead to transform global shipping into the catalyst for the next major blue revolution.

The need for new ocean leadership

Sunday’s protests were the latest in a set of actions by newly formed environmental group, Ocean Rebellion, a spinoff from the high profile climate campaign group, Extinction Rebellion.

The new ocean activist group have been taking on the global shipping industry, a sector that had been historically ignored by most major traditional environmental organizations.

Speaking after the protests on Sunday, a spokesperson for Ocean Rebellion, Clive Russell explained the reason for the demonstration. “We, Ocean Rebellion, have continued our protest against the IMO because of the IMO’s continual failure to put the life of the Ocean, and humanity, at the heart of its decision making. The recent proposal (snappily named J/5.rev1) many countries are pushing through the IMO is greenwash – the product of fossil fuel lobbying. It requires zero change from the shipping industry and effectively allows shipping to increase pollution with no regulation for the next decade (or longer). 

The IPCC has warned us we need to restrict emissions by at least 40% to prevent global warming exceeding 1.5C. We ask the IMO, why aren’t you listening to your peers?”

When asked about the outcome expected from the protests, Ocean Rebellion was clear about their demands for next week’s vote.

“We demand the IMO drop this ridiculous greenwashing and start regulating the shipping industry. At the very least shipping must adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement. But this really isn’t far enough. To really make inroads into shipping emissions we demand the IMO bans the use of Heavy Fuel Oil, a byproduct of the fossil fuel industry, by 2025. 

The delegates of the Marine Environment Protection Committee must vote against J/5.rev1 – it really is a total waste of paper and time. If they do this on Monday they can spend the rest of the week discussing how the IMO can make a real difference, perhaps they might even decide to regulate shipping – that will be a refreshing change.”

IMO’s Wakashio response criticized

Alongside Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, Ocean Rebellion have been calling for a full investigation into the circumstances of the Wakashio oil spill in Mauritius this summer, and for stricter regulations on global shipping.

No senior member for the IMO have appeared on the record to account for the international organization’s actions in the Indian Ocean island nation. At least a dozen IMO international laws appeared to have been broken with the grounding, oil leak and scuttling of the vessel.

The Wakashio was one of the clearest embodiments for how the IMO has failed to protect the marine environment or poorer coastal and island communities, with weak and ineffective laws that they themselves are unable to effectively police.

With the climate crisis looming, the IMO’s approach of industry self-regulation is being questioned more and more by international leaders, many who are calling for new and stronger ways to reign in an industry operating largely with impunity.

Next week brings these decisions to a head, and the outcome will send a signal for how responsive the UN agency is to the profound changes happening internationally.

The coronavirus pandemic and new U.S. leadership on the world stage could be exactly the signals needed for the world to build back a better future for the ocean. It is an opportunity not to be missed.