A survey from the Danish Centre for Energy, Environment and Health concluded that the shipping industry’s emissions of substances such as particulates and sulphur not only contribute to “acidification of the environment”, they could cause up to 50,000 premature deaths a year in Europe.
Sweden was among the first countries to put the problem of sulphur in shipping fuel in the spotlight and lobbied the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on the issue. And in 2008, in response to growing international concern, the latter decided to tackle the issue. It decided that across the bulk of the world’s seas, the sulphur threshold of bunker (shipping) oil would be cut from the current 4.5% to 0.5% from 2020. However, it ruled that the Baltic, North Sea and English Channel were especially vulnerable to sulphur emissions. As a result this was decreed the Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA), with the stipulation that all vessels based in the region, or passing through, cut bunker fuel sulphur content from the current 1% to 0.1% from 2015.
Environmental and health benefits
Its supporters say the IMO’s move will bring about environmental and health gains for all countries in the SECA. But ever since 2008 there has been a rising tide of protest in Sweden, with claims that the ruling will have a devastating effect on the exports and financial viability of some of its primary industries – forestry, timber, paper products and steel.
To date the campaign has failed to persuade the IMO to change course. However, after Sweden’s forestry products and steel exporters and their shipping operators presented evidence to politicians that the SECA ruling would increase shipping costs by 15-25% and run the risk of considerable cargo volumes switching from sea to road, several have done an about-turn and now oppose it – even though they previously worked hard to push it through.
Consequently there is total confusion on the issue in Swedish politics. Now that the anti campaigners have made their view clear that the SECA decision will wipe out the competitive edge of Sweden’s biggest industries, a lively political debate has started. On the one hand are the eco-lobbyists, led by environment minister Lena Ek, and on the other, business and industry lobbyists led by infrastructure minister Catharina Elmsäter-Svärd.
Eco arguments
The eco-lobbyists are being equally trenchant in their stance. The Swedish Environmental Research Company and other bodies say that shipping has long escaped environmental legislation. In others, notably the automotive sector, regulation has delivered major environmental improvements for many years.
In particular the environmentalists cite the example of California, which forced car makers to install catalytic exhaust filtration as far back as the 1970s. Opponents initially said the move would be impossible to implement, but it eventually became a benchmark for eco legislation.
In other areas too, such as the energy industry, there have been major legislative developments to improve environmental performance. In the meantime, the majority of the world’s shipping fleet still runs on heavy bunker oil.
The anti-SECA lobby points out that developing water transport has been pinpointed as a high priority for meeting Europe’s future transport needs. They also highlight that the shipping sector is largely unsubsidised. It carries 98% of its costs, while subsidies cover 40% of the truck industry’s and 60% of the railways’. And the consequence of a cut in subsidy for the Swedish railways has been the operators’ announcement of steep price rises.
Even taking maritime fuel sulphur content into account, the campaign says, shipping is a preferable transport method in terms of emissions per transported tonne. And ever worsening congestion on northern Europe’s inadequate roads is adding to the environmental arguments for shipping and creating a new “highway at sea”. In the UK, SECA’s opponents cite new water-borne solutions for transporting goods from south to north, such as PD Ports’ Felixstowe to Teesport feeder service and the Southampton link to Liverpool. Sweden too is working on similar solutions for bulk volumes to the north of the country.
Disadvantage
So where does that leave the bunker fuel debate today?
In the latest twist, Sweden has brought on board the German Federal Council in demanding a single pan-EU sulphur-content threshold. The view of the latter is that imposing stricter limits for the Baltic and North Seas than other EU maritime areas would prejudice against German ports.
However, at the same time, Viking Line has announced that it will shortly present a solution to the issue for its east coast Gotland route by operating its vessels on bunker oil with 0.2% sulphur content. Just how this will impact the company’s finances has yet to be revealed.
Several other shipping lines say they are also working on solutions, including new fuel alternatives, or filtration systems, known as scrubbers.
So we are now faced with the odd situation that shipping users oppose the lower sulphur bunker oil ruling, while the shipping industry itself is working towards it.
But it still must be concluded that the threat posed by the SECA ruling to Scandinavia’s exports of forestry products remains – and at a time when the markets and currency situation are already extremely precarious.
