In a defining submission ahead of IMO's crunch 12th Inter-Sessional Working Group on GHG emissions in May, the sponsors call for the massive revenues that will result from a GHG price on shipping, to finance an equitable transition that leaves no country behind.
The Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu, the most climate vulnerable nations on earth, are spearheading a drive to raise ambition at the International Maritime Organisation and ensure the resulting shift to non-emitting technologies and fuel benefits all. In 2020, RMI and the Solomon Islands proposed a GHG levy with an entry level price of $100 GHG-equivalent. Since then, other coalitions have proposed other market-based measures, including different levies and variations of emission trading schemes.
There is now general agreement a strong carbon price and market signal is essential if shipping is to rise to the 1.5-degree challenge. At ISWG-12 in May, member states will finally begin to seriously negotiate the future shipping market-based measure. For it to have any value in keeping global warming below a 1.5-degree temperature threshold, the measure will need to send an unequivocal signal that shipping is decarbonising now and will be fully GHG free by no later than 2050. If the market does not respond adequately, a command measure, such as a stringent fuel standard, will be also be required. Anything less is simply playing around the edges of what is needed to save the climate vulnerable countries from the current existential threat.
The scale of the market-based measure now needed will generate greater revenues than is currently required by the shipping sector to decarbonise. The World Bank is conservatively estimating that the revenues generated could be in the order of $60 billion p.a. initially. This submission from the Pacific calls for an "Equitable Transition" to be the basis for determining the allocation of such revenues among IMO member states.
Associate Professor Bordahandy (USP Law School) has led a MCST team in a deep research dive to look at where the IMO Impact assessment process originated from and asks whether the IMO has confused Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs) – which are reasonably well understood and recognized - with Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA), a markedly different and less well recognized and defined instrument. The paper concludes with suggesting a series of six priority actions for Pacific delegations to consider advocating for in forthcoming IMO sessions.
The Clean Seas Coalition has also raised the issue of IMO's interpretation of Impact Assessments. In a detailed legal assessment lodged as an information paper at the upcoming 11th Intercessional Working Group, highly respected legal expert Kate Cook at Matrix Chambers and Leigh Day Solicitors of London examines the precedents around Environmental Impact Assessments, particularly positive impacts, as used in other theatres to highlight the deficiencies in the current IMO regime.