Something big happened last month at the International Maritime Organization meeting

The waves after a tumultuous session at the IMO (International Maritime Organization) early in April are finally hitting the shore. It is not often that they get the kind of scrutiny it was recently subject to. To be honest, it is long overdue. Here is Stand’s take on what those waves mean as they wash the flotsam and jetsam up onto the policy beach.

Who is the IMO?

The IMO is the UN body that oversees shipping – the kinds of voyages that go between nations, overseas across the Pacific, Atlantic and elsewhere between and beyond the scrutiny of most types of national control. It is an important body that operates relatively covertly behind closed doors in London, UK. Enforcement lies with the flag states, some port state control inspections, and insurance minimum standards. The IMO is best thought of as setting the baseline or minimum standards on how ships should operate. For example, what kinds of emergencies they must be prepared for, and what kinds of fuels can and cannot be used under what circumstances. This is an enormously important role for ocean going vessels, as they operate just beyond the horizon from most inspectors, and literally outside of the kind of accountability regimes that keep trucks and trains safe.

What happened at the recent IMO meeting in London.

Almost a decade after the Paris Agreement was penned, the IMO is settling out what addressing climate means for their work. Ocean-going shipping is a massive part of our lives – over 80% of goods are at one point moved over the waves.  If shipping was a country it would be the sixth most impacting in terms of climate pollution.

The IMO has already made some good, although slow, progress. Earlier they had agreed to climate pollution reduction goals, to assess progress towards those goals with lifecycle assessments of pollution from fuels and engines, and how they want to account for different types of pollution from ships. The big question in April was about financial mechanisms – a price on pollution. Everything was on the table; from a levy that would charge for just about every gram of pollution, to a credit system that would reward some practices while punishing others.

What does it all mean?

1) Diplomatically: A precedent setting multi-lateral agreement was reached through a vote at the IMO – this was about industries agreeing to policies that are basically regulations on pollution with legally binding financial measures. These policies exist even in the space between nations, a spot difficult to include in agreements, like the one made in Paris, and an absolute necessity in the fight for our planet. All of this at a time when getting a large group of countries to agree with each other is particularly difficult.

2) Financially: There is unquestionably uncertainty about the future of any fossil fuel in the ocean-going vessels realm. Ships take a long time to design, build, and operate and decommission – we’re talking decades. So, financing is a really important part of building ships. Traditional bunker oils are among the dirtiest fuels in use today, and LNG is not much better in terms of climate pollution when the lifecycle is considered. Any prudent investor watching the ocean-going shipping space would be wise to think twice before giving money to build LNG ships or infrastructure. Investments in wind assistance (there are some very modern sails for ships now), electrification on vessels, and energy efficiency are where the solid money is likely to be heading.

Unfortunately…

3) Environmentally is where the news gets very sad: Insufficient ambition was brought into law to meet even the IMO’s own targets. More needs to be done to sort out the details of what the agreement will mean practically, and that is a source of great hope amongst those of us fighting for the planet. But as the agreement stands, the IMO is not even set to meet their own goals let alone do their part to prevent planetary mutually assured-destruction. This was a major moment when a course for a climate safe future could have been set, and the IMO has only started to tack in that direction.

What needs to happen now.

We are going to need to turn the rudder sharply to meet our goals for 2050. That means pushing for strong national action plans, fighting fossil fuel funding from banks, and putting pressure on brands that are the ones hiring the ships to move the goods.