1. European Cruise Council 2010 Conference
Brussels 14 September 2010
Elena Višnar Malinovská
European Commission
Introduction
This presentation will cover both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from ships. As you will know or otherwise learn now, these two are in a completely different stage now. On air pollution, legislation is in force and new, far more stringent legislation will become effective over the next decade.
On greenhouse gas emissions, we have been discussing possible measures for the last decade and even though the IMO has done efforts to accelerate the negotiations, it will probably take many more years before an effective package of measures can become effective.
Since cruise ships are only a relatively small number compared to ships, most of the text will be on shipping in general.
European Commission:

2. Cruise ship in Mediterranean
European Commission:

3. Haze over Norwegian Fjord due to (cruise) ships
European Commission:

4. Satellite image of ship tracks
European Commission:

5. Contribution of ships to SOx 2020
IIASA 2007
Relative contribution ships to air pollution on land; scenario without amendment to MARPOL Annex VI (1.5% sulphur in SECA; assumed 2.7% sulphur outside SECAs)
European Commission:

6. Preliminary result: reduction SOx (only current SECAs)
European Commission:

7. Preliminary results SECA 0.10%
Left column: annual reduction life years lost with use of fuel with max 0.10% in current SECAs
Middle one: additional gain Mediterranean
Right column: additional gain Black Sea
Dominant: PM reduction
European Commission:

8. Fuel standards: ships compared to others
Maximum permitted sulphur content of fuels:
Ships at open sea, today: ppm (4.50%)
Ships at open sea, 2012: ppm (3,5%)
Ships in SECAs today: ppm (1.00%)
Ships at open sea, 2020: 5000 ppm (0.50%)
Ships in SECAs, 2015: 1000 ppm (0.10%)
Ships at berth EU ports, now:1000 ppm (0.10%)
Trucks, cars, busses: 10 ppm (0.001%)
Inland shipping, trains, 2011: 10 ppm (0,001%)
Direct link fuel quality and sulphur content and PM!
European Commission:

9. GHG: ships compared to other transport sectors
EC action on transport GHG
Aviation included in EU ETS proposed 2006, agreed 2008
‘Low carbon fuel standard’ proposed 2007, agreed 2008
‘CO2 and cars’ proposed 2007, agreed 2008
Light Duty Vehicles (vans) (proposed October 2009)
Car Labelling (under preparation)
Heavy Duty Vehicles (Trucks) (under preparation)
Maritime Transport (if required)
European Commission:

10. Commission planning
Proposal to amend Directive 1999/32/EC on sulphur in fuel end 2010 (especially to implement amendments to MARPOL Annex VI)
No decision yet on EU measures to reduce greenhouse gas; potentially end 2011?
European Commission:

11. Air pollution: relevant for Cruise ships
Amendment aims to align with new standards and definitions adopted by IMO and ISO, including the 2008 amendment to MARPOL Annex VI to require use of fuel with 0.10% in SECAs as of 2015.
The EU fuel requirements for passenger ships outside SECAs (1.5% sulphur) under consideration.
Clarification of applicability of this provision to cruise ships.
European Commission:

12. GHG: ‘Global action’ - difficult progress
Full support to global measures developed through IMO
Broad coverage of emissions, no distortion of competition between ships
Blockage in IMO: political problem - not technical
Difficulty of agreeing: cap, exemptions, use of revenue, institutional arrangements, access to credits, penalties
Need to agree: monitoring/verification ruels, auctioning rules, global registry, administrating bodies, enforcement

13. No action is not a solution Industry should be part of the solution
Key messages
No action is not a solution
Industry should be part of the solution
Understanding of the economic sitution but health and environment ask for further action
Each sector needs to contribute
The Commission is traditionally open for dialogue
European Commission:

14. Questions:
Firstly, and assuming nobody likes the look and smell of black smoke coming out of the stack from ships (leave alone during the romantic experiences of cruise shipping), to what extent has the industry been implementing abatement equipment or clean fuel like LNG? Are you considering doing so for the purpose of obtaining a competitive advantage, and if not, why?
Secondly, and also for the purpose of avoiding confusing in measures applying in EU waters, would industry support the full alignment of IMO rules into EU law, and if not, why?
Finally, and accepting that MARPOL VI might come with significant albeit warranted costs, what can the European Commission do to support a transition to low emission cruise ships.
European Commission: