Maritime and ports businesses push for global shipping climate deal
Almost 90 international groups back ‘certainty’ on carbon levy opposed by US
Maritime groups, ship owners, port operators and logistics companies are among almost 90 international businesses urging governments to push ahead on a global shipping emissions deal, which the US has worked to derail.
The Port of Antwerp-Bruges, as well as ports in Germany and Denmark, logistics provider Kuehne+Nagel and Volkswagen-owned engine and turbine maker Everllence are among those urging countries to adopt a UN framework to “give the industry the certainty it requires”.
The framework first agreed last year was a “hard-fought compromise”, which had earned “overwhelming industry support”, they wrote in an open letter ahead of what are expected to be fraught International Maritime Organization talks next month.
It would provide a “clear and credible pathway for the decarbonisation of international shipping”.
The shipping industry delivers about 80 per cent of trade and contributes an estimated 3 per cent to the emissions behind climate change.
The US is accused of using “bully boy tactics” to tank the UN-based net zero framework, which had been provisionally agreed last April and would have resulted in a carbon emissions levy on shipping.
Under subsequent US intimidation, including personal threats, supporters from African and small Pacific and Caribbean island countries dropped their backing at the October IMO meetings.
Despite positioning itself as a climate leader, Panama has now joined co-sponsors Liberia and Argentina in proposing a “revised” approach that would in effect ditch the carbon levy.
Panama and Liberia along with the Marshall Islands are the world’s largest “flag states” — where ships are registered — controlling almost half of global merchant vessel tonnage. This makes their support for any deal crucial.
Against the proposed “revision” is a submission from a group of seven Pacific Island countries: “We do not have time to renegotiate the fundamental architecture of the Net Zero Framework,” they wrote in a document seen by the FT.
They warned that attempting to “extract or alter” core components of the framework “will not improve the likelihood of the group reaching agreement; it will cause the entire structure to collapse”.
The businesses backing a levy, which would help to promote investment in lowering carbon emissions, said “confusion and uncertainty resulting from delay in the adoption of the framework risks undermining international investment and growth”.
Maarten Wetselaar, chief executive of Spain’s $12bn energy group Moeve, said adoption of the framework would “send a powerful signal to producers and investors that Europe is committed to a global, level‑playing‑field transition, unlocking the clean fuel volumes shipping urgently needs”.
Uwe Lauber, chief executive of the $10bn engineer Everllence, said the negotiations had proved “a harsh setback for the entire industry”.
“Everybody is aware that net zero is only achievable through synthetic fuels,” he said, “But without the Net Zero Framework in place the business case for the necessary investments into e-fuels and e-fuel production is a lot weaker. The IMO must find the strength to vote for the NZF this year.”
One IMO diplomat said the framework had become “taboo for now”, but the April talks might result in “a better understanding of a new confusion”.
Under the plans agreed a year ago, the scheme would impose a carbon price on emissions for ships larger than 5,000 tons and was expected to generate revenues of up to $15bn per year from 2030.
The IMO said it was making efforts to find consensus at the talks, which would allow member states to “continue discussing outstanding concerns, listen to everyone and consider the next steps”.