The Case

A very dirty fuel:

The air pollution generally emitted from ocean-going vessels is such that 16 large ships emit as much sulfur as do all cars in the world combined.

Besides, we have to keep in mind that there are 100,000 ships of various sizes on the seas today. It is known that international shipping in its present form accounts for 8 to 10 percent of sulphur emissions from all types of fossil fuels and also contributes to nearly 30% of global releases of nitrogen oxides.

The reason behind these figures is the very nature of the fuel used by ships, a very low cost tar fuel residue left at the end of the oil refining process which is allowed to be burned on the high seas; it is called bunker fuel. If ships do not burn it, no other industry can effectively absorb it.  If all ships were to burn much cleaner low sulphur diesel, there would not be enough refining capacity worldwide to supply it, and it would represent an investment amounting to roughly USD 130 Billion, causing a potential rise in shipping cost of 50 to 70%.

This low cost fuel is rich in sulphur, with a percentage ranging form 2.7 to 4.5 %, to be compared with road vehicles using now Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) with a sulphur content of 0.001% in Europe, making ship fuel 4,500 times more polluting and harmful.

It is estimated that thousands of people die every year from these toxic fumes, lingering in the air as a brown haze for many days especially those in proximity to the sea lanes and ports. “Once emitted, sulphur oxides react with other pollutants in the air such as nitrates or ammonium, to form very small particles. Moreover the burning of high-sulphur heavy fuel oils results in higher emissions of primary particles (particulate organic matter and black carbon), these are the killer fine particles which can enter into the lungs unhindered by nose hairs and are less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5).

(Acid News Nr 3 – Oct. 2009).

The need for Emissions Control Areas (ECA’s):

The United States and Canada want ships to burn cleaner fuel when approaching the continent to reduce PM2.5 smog-related deaths. On 27th March 09, both countries jointly submitted a proposal to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to designate most areas of the coastal waters covered by their Exclusive Economic Zones as an emissions control area (ECA) for the control of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter emissions notably the deadly PM 2.5 and superfines.

“According to calculations by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the creation of an ECA would save up to 8,300 American and Canadian lives every year by 2020 by imposing stricter environmental standards on large ships.”

(Acid News – 02 June 09).

Ships would be required to switch to cleaner fuel when entering an ECA and many are already fitted with dual tanks for this purpose.

The implementation of such an agreement should be a model for the Pearl River Delta (PRD) which includes the two different jurisdictions of Hong Kong and Guangdong where both are subjected to an intense shipping activity : 12% of the global container traffic is concentrated in the PRD.

If incentives and voluntary measures for vessels to reduce speed in the PRD, and as a result burn less fuel, are incremental steps towards tighter air pollution control, regulations ultimately, are the only way forward to drastically reduce this massive source of harmful pollutants.

The intended regulation:

On 10th October 2008, The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted the amendments to MARPOL 73/78  Annex VI which will enter into force internationally on 1st July 2010. The new requirements related to fuel oil sulphur content are listed below :

(a)  The global fuel sulphur content will be lowered from the existing level (4.5%) to 3.5% in 2012, and further to 0.5% in 2020 subject to a review in 2018.

(b)  Within "Sulphur Emission Control Areas", the fuel sulphur content will be lowered from the existing level (1.5%) to 1.0% in 2010, and further to 0.1% in 2015.

The situation today in Hong Kong

Amid public pressure about the need to curb major sources of air pollution, authorities in Hong Kong have put pressure on power producers with emissions caps, introduced cleaner fuel and cleaner engines for road transport, yet have turned a blind eye to shipping, so far.

A University of Science and Technology (HK) study found in October 2009 that emissions from sulphur dioxide from the container port of Kwai Chung emanated from local shipping and port operations, putting the health of 3 million people living around the area at risk.  Yet Hong Kong Government proposals to clear the pollution from sea-going traffic do not mention container ships and the port.

Ferries, pleasure crafts and other small boats – which already use fuel with a sulphur content of 0.5% are being encouraged to use low-sulphur-diesel.

Such an approach ignores the salient fact that the burning of bunker fuel is many times more dangerous to health.

Moreover in November 2009, Hong Kong shipowners said they will switch to a more environmentally friendly fuel if new legislation forces them to do so. Needless to say they want to ensure the existence of a level-playing field where all participants will have to face compliance at the same time. They also warned that such a move would increase the price of goods. (What’s new ?)

Hong Kong being a contracting Administration to MARPOL 73/78  Annex VI, the new requirements in (a) coming in force on 1st July 2010 will be implemented through amendments to the current legislation, namely the Merchant Shipping Regulations, Cap. 413M. Since no ECA in the PRD has been implemented yet, the provisions in (b) won’t apply. 

What is needed  to cut down air pollution from ships :

• get the authorities to see the impact of ship pollution from a public health approach instead of a quantitative approach, knowing that 2,900 people in every million who live near ports are likely to develop cancer due to poor air quality generated from the port related industry
• support the implementation of a comprehensive Emission Control Area (ECA) within the whole Pearl River Delta, bringing all the ports of the Delta under the same regulations
• develop a regulatory and planning framework for implementing green port policies through cross-industry and cross-jurisdiction
• consider imposing fees on high-sulphur fuels and lowering or removing taxes and duties on ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD)
• encourage the use and availability of cleaner fuels