Alberta Longanesi Cattani Senior Associate
MEPC 77 and its impact on decarbonisation of shipping
We know that the Glasgow Climate Pact was agreed at COP 26, emphasising the urgent need for a rapid and sustained decline of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (see more details in our recent article COP26 and its impact on Shipping). The Marine Environment Protection Committee’s 77th meeting (MEPC 77), held two weeks after, was considered by many as a key test of IMO’s ability to act upon the Paris Agreement targets by delivering a number of GHG reduction measures.
What does this mean for the shipping industry?
The shipping industry waited with bated breath for the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to consider a revision of its strategy on GHG emissions at MEPC 77. The meeting was held in November 2021.
What was the agenda for the meeting?
The agenda included a number of important and substantive items, with discussions covering:
- Reduction of GHG emissions from shipping
- Air pollution prevention and energy efficiency
- Ballast water management and anti-fouling systems
- Marine plastic litter from ships
- Exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS)
- Black carbon in the Arctic
Did the 174 Member States manage to cover all these aspects as intended?
The Member States struggled to allocate adequate time and resources to each topic. With reference to decarbonisation, several significant proposals have been referred to session number 11 and 12 of the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG), scheduled for Spring 2022, and to MEPC 78, currently tentatively scheduled for June 2022.
What were the key decisions made relevant to the decarbonisation of shipping?
1. Revision of Initial IMO GHG Strategy
A draft resolution for Zero Emission Shipping by 2050 was put forward at MEPC 77. The Committee was unable to reach a consensus on the wording of the resolution, but agreed to initiate the revision of the IMO Initial GHG Strategy including its targets, impact assessments and a review of fuel availabilities.
Concrete proposals for the reduction of GHG emissions are to be submitted in advance of MEPC 78, with the finalization and adoption of the revised strategy set to take place at MEPC 80 (Spring 2023).
2. Status of International Maritime Research Fund (IMRF)/ International Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB)
The proposal for the creation of a US$5billion Research & Development (R&D) fund – the IMO Maritime Research Fund (IMRF), to be managed by the International Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB) – to accelerate R&D for zero emission technologies is now promoted by major Member States and by leading industry associations.
However, a number of countries expressed concerns at MEPC 77 over the governance and administration of the prospective IMRF and IMRB and its further consideration has been referred to ISWG-GHG in Spring 2022.
3. A ‘basket of measures’ for mid-term reductions of GHG emissions
In June 2021, MEPC 76 approved a ‘Work Plan’ to progress the development of mid & long-term GHG reduction measures and its programme of follow-up actions.
Phase I of the Work Plan is set to conclude next Spring during ISWG-GHG 11 and ISWG-GHG 12, and concerns the collation and initial consideration of mid-term GHG reduction measures. These are often referred as a ‘basket of measures’ and include a combination of market-based, technical and operational measures.
MEPC 77 agreed to establish the following with reference to Phase I:
- An ad-hoc expert workshop on impact assessments to be held in March 2022, to consider concrete proposals for improving the impact assessment procedure and provide recommendations as part of the lessons-learned exercise.
- A correspondence group on carbon intensity reduction, to finalise and update guidelines relating in particular to the short-term measures. These will include the technical Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) and the operational Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), both due to come into force on 1 January 2023.
4. Black Carbon in the Arctic Resolution
MEPC 77 adopted a resolution aimed at protecting the Arctic from black carbon emissions from shipping, and urging Member States and ship operators to use distillate or other cleaner alternative fuels or methods of propulsion voluntarily when operating in or near the Arctic.
Even though MEPC 77 did not go as far as adopting the proposed Resolution on Zero Emission Shipping by 2050 nor as approving the establishment of the IMRF/IMRB, a number of GHG emissions reduction measures were approved by the Committee, including an agreement to revise the IMO GHG Initial Strategy and to consider further, in Spring 2022, the IMRF/IMRB proposals and the Phase I mid-term measures.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice. Should you have any queries, or you would like our assistance in considering the issues raised in this Q&A, then please do not hesitate to contact the author of this article or your usual contact at Ince.
Related news & insights
News / Court finds extra-contractual counterclaims fell within scope of arbitration agreement
02-08-2022 / Maritime
Sea Master Special Maritime Enterprise & another v. Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd (Sea Master)  EWHC 1953 (Comm) This bill of lading dispute raised issues as to whether the Bank financing the purchase of a cargo, and the holder of a switch bill of lading for the cargo, was a party to the arbitration agreement incorporated into the switch bill and, if so, whether certain counterclaims brought by the Owners came within the scope of that arbitration agreement. The Court agreed with the tribunal’s findings that, once the Court had decided that the Bank was a party to the arbitration agreement, then the counterclaims for reasonable remuneration and quantum meruit came within the ambit of the arbitration agreement, being claims “arising out of or in connection” with the bill of lading contract.
News / Party offered reasonably satisfactory security following collision obliged to accept it
20-07-2022 / Maritime
MV Pacific Pearl Co Ltd v. Osios David Shipping Inc (Panamax Alexander)  EWCA Civ 798 The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a party to ASG 2, the standard form Collision Jurisdiction Agreement, is obliged to accept reasonable security once it is offered and cannot choose to refuse that security and seek alternative or better security by arresting a ship. In such circumstances, there is no right to an arrest or any justification for it.
News / Rosita Lau, MH calls for China businesses to opt for Hong Kong arbitration in their contracts
15-07-2022 / Maritime
In an interview published this morning (14 July) in The Hong Kong Maritime Hub, Ince Partner Rosita Lau, MH calls for Chinese businesses to opt for Hong Kong arbitration in their contracts, initiative that requires attention of officials from the highest level.
News / Court finds Covid-19 restrictions did not constitute force majeure under MOA
13-07-2022 / Maritime
NKD Maritime Limited v. Bart Maritime (No 2) Inc (Shagang Giant)  EWHC 1615 (Comm) The Court has construed a force majeure clause and considered whether Buyers validly terminated a contract for the sale of a vessel on the basis that Covid-19 lockdown restrictions prevented Sellers from transferring title in the Vessel.
News / Shipping gets smart
20-06-2022 / Maritime
On 25 November 2021, the UK Law Commission published its Advice to the UK Government on how English law currently applies to smart legal contracts. Subsequently, on 16 March 2022, the Law Commission published its report on electronic trade documents, together with draft legislation that would implement its recommendations to allow for the legal recognition of trade documents such as bills of lading and bills of exchange in electronic form.
News / Carrier Under CMR Successful in Limiting Liability for Consignee’s Losses
14-06-2022 / Maritime
Paul Knapfield v. C.A.R.S. Ltd & others  EWHC 1437 (Comm) Disputes under the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, which incorporates the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 1956 (CMR), do not come up very often. This decision is, therefore, useful in illustrating when and how the CMR applies. In this case, the Court found that the CMR limit of liability applied to the claimant’s claim, with the result that his losses far exceeded the amount he could ultimately recover from the carrier.