Letter in response to the Guardian "Health risks of shipping pollution have been underestimated"

In his article, Health risks of shipping pollution have been ‘underestimated’ (9 April 2009) John Vidal suggests that Europe has resisted regulations on the emissions of ships.  This does not fit well with the fact that Europe, in addition to existing legislation at IMO, has already adopted stringent regulations under the Directive 2005/33/EC (Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels Directive).  Amongst other provisions, this Directive requires all ships at berth to burn fuel with a sulphur content of no more than 0.1% from 2010 and requires all passenger ships to burn low sulphur fuel when on a voyage between two community ports. 

However, despite this strict regional regulation, the International Maritime Organisation recently revised its air pollution legislation and unanimously agreed even more stringent provisions.  Indeed, it is this very legislation which has been the vehicle for the recent US & Canada proposal to establish an Emissions Control Area (ECA) in waters close to their shores.  Far from countries adopting legislation in the absence of international regulation they are, in fact, using the appropriate global regulatory framework to apply regional solutions to regional problems – and we expect to see more of these ECAs in coming years. 

It is also this self-same international framework which was used to create the two existing Sulphur Emission Control Areas in the North Sea and Baltic Sea (the first two of their kind in the world) and which will drive the sulphur limit in these (and other areas as yet to be determined) to 0.1% by 2015.  This timeframe is considered to be as fast as practicable given the significant reconfiguration needed to be undertaken by the refining industry if adequate supplies of compliant fuel are to be made available. 

The International Maritime Organization, the governments of Europe and the shipping industry have to deal with the possible – reducing negative health impacts from shipping dramatically whilst maintaining Europe’s capacity to transport the cargoes essential to clothe, heat and feed their populations.  It is disappointing that Mr Vidal does not approach the industry concerned for the sake of balance. 

Mr Vidal’s comparisons are often interesting but do little to make the situation clear.  Comparing the output of a ship, which may, for example, carry the equivalent of some 6,000 large trucks and operate (as Mr Vidal makes clear) for 24 hours a day for about 280 days a year with a car driven 15,000 km a year actually tells us very little. 

The complex and multi-faceted deliberations that led to the revised IMO legislation was recognised by governments, and the shipping and refining industries, as being a prime example of ambitious but pragmatic rule making.  It is unfortunate that the article reflects neither the complexities of the issue nor the widespread satisfaction with the legislation that has been developed. 

Robert Ashdown, Head of Technical, The Chamber of Shipping