GAGANYAAN MISSION (India’s First Human Spaceflight)

│
├──► A. OBJECTIVE
│ → Send 3 astronauts to 400 km Low Earth Orbit
│ → 3-day mission with safe sea landing
│
├──► B. TESTING & TIMELINE
│ → TV-D1 (Crew Escape validated)
│ → TV-D2 (Upcoming abort test)
│ → Uncrewed Flight 1 (Vyommitra onboard)
│ → Optional Uncrewed Flight 2 (if needed)
│ → Crewed Mission (Scheduled Q1 2027)
│
├──► C. LAUNCH VEHICLE – HLVM3 (Human-Rated LVM3)
│ → Stage 1: Solid Boosters (S200 × 2)
│ → Stage 2: Liquid Stage (L110, 2×Vikas 2 engines)
│ → Stage 3: Cryogenic Stage (C25, CE-20 engine)
│
├──► D. ORBITAL MODULE (8.2 tonnes)
│ ├─ CREW MODULE (CM)
│ │ → Pressurized cabin for 3 astronauts
│ │ → ECLSS: Life support (O₂, CO₂, temp, waste)
│ │ → CES: Abort system during ascent
│ │ → Parachutes for safe re-entry
│ └─ SERVICE MODULE (SM)
│ → Provides propulsion and power
│ → Supports orbital altitude adjustments
├──► E. CREW TRAINING & RECOVERY
│ → Training by IAF + ISRO
│ ◦ Centrifuge, Zero-G, Survival drills
│ → Recovery by Indian Navy in Bay of Bengal
│
└──► F. UNIQUE FEATURES
→ Vyommitra: Female humanoid robot
→ First fully indigenous human spaceflight program
→ Key technologies: ECLSS, CES, Re-entry systems
India has achieved remarkable successes in unmanned space missions including the
Chandrayaan and Mars Orbiter Mission, but has not ventured into manned space missions.
What are the main obstacles to launching a manned space mission, both in terms of technology
and logistics? Examine critically. UPSC 2017

What is India’s plan to have its own space station and how will it benefit our space
programme? (Answer in 150 words) 10
 [ What is a Nanozyme? ]
|
[ Nanomaterial + Enzyme-like catalytic activity = Nanozyme ]
|
[ Why Nanozymes instead of Natural Enzymes? ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
[ Stable, cheaper, longer shelf life ] [ Broad activity, room temperature storage ]
|
[ Types of Nanozymes ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
[ Peroxidase-like ] [ Oxidase-like ] [ Catalase-like ] [ Superoxide Dismutase-like ]
|
[ Glutathione Peroxidase-like (GPx) ]
 [ IISc Bengaluru develops metal-based nanozyme ]
|
[ Controls abnormal blood clotting ]
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
[ May treat PTE & COVID-related clots ] [ Normal clotting: platelets form clots when blood vessel is
injured ]
|
[ This process is called haemostasis ]
|
[ Involves chemical signals like collagen and thrombin ]
|
[ In PTE, signals malfunction → oxidative stress increases ]
|
[ Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) are produced in excess ]
|
[ ROS over-activate platelets → unwanted blood clots ]
|
[ This leads to thrombosis → illness & death ]
|
 [ Nanozymes act like natural enzymes that remove ROS ]
|
[ ROS reduction → less platelet activation → no abnormal clotting ]
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
[ Built in different shapes/sizes using [ Tested on human platelets for clumping ]
controlled chemical reactions ] |
[ Spherical vanadium pentoxide (V₂O₅) worked best ]
|
[ Mimics enzyme: glutathione peroxidase (removes ROS) ]
|
[ Tested on mice with PTE → less clotting, better survival ]
|
[ No toxicity observed – mice stayed healthy for 5 days ]
|
[ Next: test for stroke prevention → human trials planned ]
|
[ Mechanism of Action ]
|
[ Surface catalytic sites bind harmful molecules (e.g., ROS, H₂O₂) ]
|
[ Convert toxic species to harmless products using redox reactions ]
|
[ Materials Used in Nanozymes ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
[ Metal-based ] [ Metal oxides ] [ Carbon-based ] [ MOFs ] [ Composites ]
(e.g., Au, V) (e.g., Fe₃O₄, V₂O₅) (e.g., CNTs) (Metal-Organic Frameworks)
|
[ IISc Bengaluru Nanozyme (2025) ]
|
[ Spherical Vanadium Pentoxide (V₂O₅) mimics Glutathione Peroxidase ]
|
[ Reduces Reactive Oxygen Species → prevents excess platelet activation ]
|
[ Prevents abnormal clotting in PTE and COVID-19 related thrombosis ]
|
[ Tested in mice & human platelets ]
|
[ Reduced clotting, improved survival, no toxicity observed ]
|
[ Future: Stroke prevention & human trials ]
|
[ Applications of Nanozymes ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
[ Medicine ] [ Environment ] [ Industry & Diagnostics ]
(e.g., ROS removal, (e.g., pollutant (e.g., biosensors,
antibacterial agents, degradation, heavy glucose testing,
clot prevention) metal detox) colorimetric kits)
|
[ Advantages of Nanozymes ]
|
[ Stable, multifunctional, scalable, easy storage, customizable surfaces ]
|
[ Limitations & Challenges ]
|
[ Lower specificity, potential toxicity, biodegradability concerns ]
|
[ Future Prospects ]
|
[ Personalized medicine, smart biosensors, hybrid nanozymes, coatings ]
Q1. Which of the following are correct regarding Nanozymes?
A. They are nanomaterials with enzyme-like activity
B. They are more heat-sensitive than natural enzymes
C. They can mimic peroxidase and catalase activities
D. They are used in biosensors and environmental remediation
Assertion (A): Nanozymes are preferred over natural enzymes in industrial applications.
Reason (R): Nanozymes offer higher stability and lower cost compared to natural enzymes.
Options:
A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
B. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
C. A is true, but R is false
D. A is false, but R is true
"Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize sectors like healthcare, agriculture, and energy. Examine
the opportunities and challenges for India in harnessing this potential."

What role can nanotechnology play in the future of personalized medicine and drug delivery systems in India?
Discuss with recent examples."
1. Healthcare & Medicine
•Targeted Drug Delivery – Nano-carriers release drugs precisely at disease sites (e.g. cancer cells), reducing side effects.
•Diagnostics (Nano-biosensors) – Early detection of diseases like cancer, TB, COVID-19 using nanoscale sensors.
•Tissue Engineering – Nanofibers for artificial skin, bones, and cartilage regeneration.
•Antimicrobial Agents – Silver nanoparticles in bandages, coatings for hospital equipment.
•Nanozymes – Artificial enzymes made from nanomaterials for blood clot control or oxidative stress management.

2. Agriculture & Food

•Nano-fertilizers – Controlled release, improved absorption by plants, reducing chemical waste.
•Nano-pesticides – Targeted pest control with reduced environmental toxicity.
•Soil Monitoring Sensors – Nanosensors to detect nutrient levels, pests, and pathogens in real time.
•Food Packaging – Nanocoatings for spoilage prevention, improved shelf-life.
•Food Safety – Detection of pathogens, toxins, or contaminants in food products.
3. Energy & Environment
•Solar Cells – Nanomaterials enhance efficiency in photovoltaic cells (e.g., quantum dots, nanowires).
•Fuel Cells & Batteries – Better storage, lighter and faster-charging lithium-ion batteries using nano-
electrodes.
•Water Purification – Nano-membranes and silver nanoparticles for filtration and disinfection.
•Pollution Control – Nano-catalysts to remove VOCs, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants.
•Carbon Capture – Nanotubes and metal-organic frameworks for CO₂ absorption and sequestration.

4. Electronics & IT
•Nano-electronics – Miniaturization of transistors, improving speed and energy efficiency of processors.
•Quantum Dots – Used in displays and LEDs for better brightness and color.
•Flexible Electronics – Graphene and carbon nanotubes used in bendable screens and wearable tech.
•Memory Devices – High-density storage with faster write/read speeds using nanomaterials.
5. Defense & Security
•Stealth Coatings – Radar-absorbing nanomaterials for aircraft and submarines.
•Smart Textiles – Bulletproof, lightweight armor with nano-carbon fibers or graphene.
•Sensors & Detection – Nanosensors for detecting explosives, chemicals, or biological agents.
•Unmanned Systems – Nanocomposites for lighter and more fuel-efficient drones.
 [ Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) Technology ]
|
[ Used in coal-fired Thermal Power Plants (TPPs) to remove SO₂ ]
|
[ Why is SO₂ Removal Important? ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Prevents acid rain ] [ Protects respiratory health ] [ Reduces environmental degradation ]
|
[ Chemical Process of FGD ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Wet scrubbing method ] [ Uses limestone (CaCO₃) slurry ]
|
[ SO₂ + CaCO₃ → Calcium sulphite → Oxidised to gypsum (CaSO₄) ]
|
[ By-product gypsum → Used in cement & construction industry ]
|
[ Promotes circular economy ]
|
[ Recent Policy Development – June 2024 ]
|
[ Committee led by Principal Scientific Adviser recommended removing
mandatory FGD installation in all coal-fired TPPs ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
| |
[ Under review by MoEFCC ] [ Also under review by Ministry of Power ]
|
[ Indicates shift in India’s SO₂ management strategy ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Balancing pollution control ] [ Economic feasibility of retrofitting ] [ Climate policy alignment ]
 [ Types of FGD Systems ]
|
[ Methods to remove SO₂ from flue gases in TPPs ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
[ Wet Limestone-based FGD ] [ Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) ] [ Seawater FGD ]
| | |
- Most common method - Involves dry lime injection - Uses alkaline seawater
- ~95% SO₂ removal efficiency - Lower capital & operating cost - 70–95% SO₂ removal
- Ideal for large coal plants - Suitable for small/medium plants - Suitable for coastal plants
- Works where norms are less stringent
 [ Rationale for Reconsidering Mandatory FGD in India ]
|
[ Findings from IIT Delhi, CSIR-NEERI, NIAS, etc. ]
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
[ 1. Low Ambient SO₂ Levels ] [ 2. Low Sulphur Content in Indian Coal ] [ 3. Stack Design & Natural
| | Dispersion ]
- Most regions: 10–20 μg/m³ SO₂ - 92% of Indian coal has 0.3–0.5% sulphur |
- Below NAAQS limit: 80 μg/m³ - Naturally limits SO₂ emission - Chimney stacks ~220m
- No major difference with or without FGD height
- Helps in wide dispersal &
| dilution of SO₂
[ 4. Limited Acid Rain Risk ]
|
- 2024 IIT Delhi study: Acid rain not a major concern in Indian climate
 |
[ 5. Climate Trade-off of FGD Systems ]
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Adds ~69 million tonnes CO₂ ] [ Reduces only 17 million tonnes SO₂ ]
| |
- FGDs are energy-intensive - Low net environmental benefit
|
[ SO₂ has short-term cooling effect ]
|
- Removing SO₂ increases warming risk
- Estimated to have offset 0.5°C warming (2010–2019)
India’s Status as SO₂ Emitter
•India is the largest emitter of anthropogenic SO₂ globally.
•Accounts for over 15% of global human-made SO₂ emissions.
•Source: NASA OMI (Ozone Monitoring Instrument) satellite data.

🔹 Major Sources of SO₂ in India

•Primary source: Coal-burning in thermal power plants.
•Other contributors (globally): metal smelting, locomotives, ships burning
high-sulphur fuels, and natural sources like volcanoes.

🔹 SO₂ Emission Hotspots in India

Top regions with highest SO₂ emissions:
•Singrauli (UP/MP)
•Neyveli (TN)
•Talcher (Odisha)
•Jharsuguda (Odisha)
•Korba (Chhattisgarh)
•Kutch (Gujarat)
•Chennai (TN)
•Ramagundam (Telangana)
•Chandrapur (Maharashtra)
•Koradi (Maharashtra)
 🔹 Global SO₂ Hotspots (for context)
•Norilsk, Russia – largest hotspot globally.
•Kriel, South Africa.
•Zagros, Iran.

Government Action & Regulatory Background

•December 2015: MoEFCC introduced first-ever SO₂ emission
limits for coal-based power plants.
•Initial compliance deadline: December 2017.
•Extensions granted:
• Till Dec 2019 for Delhi-NCR plants.
• Till 2022 for most others via Supreme Court order.

Health and Environmental Concerns

•SO₂ is a major contributor to air pollution and acid rain.
•Causes respiratory problems, worsens asthma and other pulmonary diseases.
•91% of global population lives in areas exceeding WHO air pollution limits.
•4.2 million people die annually due to ambient air pollution (WHO estimate).
Timeline of FGD in India

Year Milestone/Development
MoEFCC notifies new emission norms for coal-based thermal power plants, mandating FGD for
2015 (Dec)
SO₂ control.
2017 Initial deadline to install FGD units across existing plants was December 2017, later deferred.
Phased implementation plan issued by Central Electricity Authority (CEA), deadlines extended
2018–2019
to 2022–24.
Greenpeace labels India as the world’s largest SO₂ emitter; >15% of global hotspots detected in
2019
India.
CEA further relaxes FGD installation deadlines; compliance pushed beyond 2024 for many
2020
plants.
CEA and MoP recommend focusing on region-wise prioritization (especially around critically
2023
polluted areas).
Principal Scientific Adviser Committee suggests removing mandatory FGD across all plants,
2024 (June)
arguing economic and climate trade-offs.
2025
MoEFCC and MoP reviewing PSA Committee recommendation; potential policy shift under
(Review
consideration.
ongoing)
 [ Should India Amend its Nuclear Energy Laws? ]
|
[ Current Nuclear Power Capacity: ~8.88 GW (as of 2024) ]
|
[ Target: 100 GW by 2047 for Net-Zero 2070 Goal ]
|
[ Major Reforms Needed in Policy and Legal Framework ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Atomic Energy Act, 1962 ] [ Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 ]
| |
- Central govt monopoly on nuclear - Fixes supplier liability for nuclear accidents
power generation - Considered a deterrent for foreign/private players
- Restricts private investment - Limits insurance & financing options
|
[ Planned Legal Amendments and Policy Shifts ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Amend AEA to allow PPPs ] [ Amend CLNDA to limit supplier risk ] [
Introduce regulatory reforms ]
| |
- Enable private sector role - Attract foreign technology & funds
- Break state monopoly - Improve ease of doing nuclear business
]
|
[ Strategic Initiatives for Nuclear Expansion ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ ₹20,000 crore Nuclear Energy Mission ] [ Focus on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) ]
| |
- Indigenous tech development - Safer, quicker, factory-assembled reactors
- Long-term planning till 2047 - Ideal for decentralized power grids
|
[ Financial Tools to Attract Investment ]
|
----------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Viability Gap Funding (VGF) ] [ Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) ] [ FDI encouragement ]
|
[ Conclusion: Legal reform is critical to scale nuclear power ]
|
[ Without amending laws, India may not achieve 100 GW or net-zero targets
 [ Evolution and Problems with India’s Nuclear Liability Law ]
|
[ 1. Why a Liability Law Was Needed ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ No clear liability framework ] [ Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984) ] [ U.S.–India Nuclear Deal (2008) ]
| |
- 1960s: Reactors built without - Exposed the dangers of - India started importing nuclear
liability laws hazardous industries technology
- No clarity on who pays for - Public pressure for legal - Strong liability law needed to
nuclear accidents safeguards protect citizens & attract FDI
norms ]
|
[ 2. Key Milestones in Legal Evolution ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Atomic Energy Act, 1962 ] [ Indo–U.S. Nuclear Agreement, 2008 ] [ CLNDA, 2010 ]
| | |
- Central govt monopoly - NSG waiver → allowed nuclear trade - Established India’s liability law
- No mention of liability - Foreign suppliers wanted CSC norms - Sought balance between safety
for investment protection & investment
 [ Key Provisions of CLNDA, 2010 ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Operator = primarily liable ] [ Operator can recover damages from supplier ]
| |
- If caused by defective tech - Only if contract permits or due to
faulty material/equipment
| |
[ Operator’s liability capped at ₹1,500 crore ]
[ Govt pays beyond that cap ]
[ Claims commission created ]
|
[ Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) ]
|
- India delayed CSC ratification due to political concerns
- Ratified CSC in 2016 after global & investor pressure
|
[ Problem: Suppliers still fear “right of recourse” ]
|
[ This limits FDI & makes India’s liability regime stricter than global
 [ Problems with India’s Nuclear Liability Law ]
|
[ CLNDA 2010 allows limited “supplier liability” ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
[ a. Supplier Liability is Unusual ] [ b. Violates Global Norms ] [ c. Decline in Foreign Participation ]
| | |
- Global norm (CSC): operator-only - International suppliers want - Westinghouse, Areva, Rosatom
liability indemnity clauses unwilling post-CLNDA
- India allows suing suppliers - Indian law disallows waivers - Rosatom’s deal only under
- Suppliers fear legal exposure - Contracts become incompatible pre-CLNDA (Kudankulam)
 |
[ d. Hurts Domestic Industry ]
|
- Indian vendors fear litigation under CLNDA
- Refused to supply parts in Kovvada project
- NPCIL took full legal responsibility
- Workaround is legally weak and untested
|
[ e. Increases Investment Risk ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
- Legal uncertainty → high insurance - Project delays & cost overruns
premiums - Investor hesitation in nuclear sector
|
[ f. Untested in Real-World Scenarios ]
|
- No nuclear accidents yet in India
- Law remains legally unproven → adds uncertainty
 [ Legal Changes Proposed for India’s Nuclear Energy Sector ]
|
[ Objective: Achieve 100 GW nuclear power by 2047 for net-zero 2070 goal ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ 1. Amend Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962 ] [ 2. Modify CLNDA, 2010 ] [ 3. Enable Public-Private
Participation ]
| | |
- Allow private sector to build & - Reduce supplier liability during - 50% of target through PPP route
operate nuclear plants accidents - Attract domestic + foreign investment
- Break central monopoly - Align with global norms (CSC)
 [ Policy Backing & Support Measures ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ ₹20,000 crore Nuclear Energy Mission (NEM) ] [ Financial & institutional reforms ]
| |
- Focus on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) - Viability Gap Funding (VGF)
- Emphasis on safety, speed, and scalability - Simplified tendering & approvals
|
[ SMR & BSR Deployment Strategy ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ 5 Indigenous SMRs by 2033 ] [ Industry-led 220 MW Bharat Small Reactors (BSRs) ]
| |
- Use local tech & manpower - For captive industrial use
- Faster build time - Boosts energy independence
|
[ Implementation Status ]
|
[ NPCIL has issued tenders for SMR & BSR projects ]
 [ Global Liability Practices: The CSC Model ]
|
[ CSC = Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage ]
|
[ A global framework India has signed (ratified in 2016) ]
|
[ Core Principles of CSC Liability Regime ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ a. Operator-Only Liability ] [ b. Tiered Compensation Fund ] [ c. Supplier Liability Limited ]
| | |
- Supplier not liable unless - Compensation is pre-arranged - Allowed only if:
specified by contract in 3 tiers: • Faulty contract terms
1. Operator funds • Willful misconduct
2. National govt pool
3. International CSC pool
|
[ Ensures speedy victim compensation without litigation delays ]
|
[ No prolonged court battles involving suppliers → improves investment confidence ]
|
[ Regulatory Assumptions under CSC ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Neutral safety regulator ensures approvals ] [ Host country = final guarantor of safety ]
| |
- Transparent licensing system - Government holds responsibility
boosts global trust for public safety & remediation
 [ Structure of the Sun ]
|
[ The Sun is composed of several concentric layers ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
[ 1. Core ] [ 2. Radiative Zone ] [ 3. Convective Zone ] [ 4. Photosphere ]
| | | |
- Central region - Energy travels by - Heat moves through - Visible surface layer
- Site of nuclear radiation (slow process) convection (hot gases - Temp ~5,500°C
fusion (H→He) - Extends up to ~0.7 rise, cool gases sink) - Emits sunlight
- Temp ~15 million °C solar radii - Temp ~2 million °C
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ 5. Chromosphere ] [ 6. Corona ] [ 7. Solar Wind ]
| | |
- Thin reddish layer - Outermost layer - Stream of charged
- Temp rises to ~10,000°C - Very hot: ~1–2 million °C particles from corona
- Visible during eclipse - Source of solar wind flowing into space
- Extends millions of km
|
[ Solar Atmosphere = Photosphere + Chromosphere + Corona ]
 [ Sun’s Magnetic Cycle ]
|
[ A repeating 11-year cycle of magnetic activity ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ 1. Solar Minimum ] [ 2. Rising Activity ] [ 3. Solar Maximum ] |
| | | [ 4. Declining Phase ]
- Few/no sunspots - Increase in sunspots - Maximum sunspots |
- Weak magnetic field - More solar flares & - Chaotic magnetic fields - Sunspot number reduces
- Low solar wind CMEs (coronal mass - High radiation output - Field gradually weakens again
ejections) - Often magnetic field flips
|
[ 5. Magnetic Polarity Flip ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
[ Occurs every ~11 years ] [ Full magnetic cycle = 22 years ]
| |
- North and South poles - Because poles flip back to
reverse their magnetic original configuration every
polarity second cycle
|
[ Impact of Magnetic Cycle on Earth ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
[ Solar flares ] [ Geomagnetic storms ] [ Auroras (Northern/Southern lights) ]
- Can disrupt - Can affect power grids - Visible near poles during high
communication and satellites solar activity
- Increases during - Related to solar storms
solar maximum
 [ Need to Regulate Shipping Emissions ]
|
[ Maritime sector = major but under-regulated source of global emissions ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
[ 1. High Emissions Output ] [ 2. Rapidly Growing Emissions ] [ 3. Cross-Border Nature ]
| | |
- Ships use heavy bunker - Expected to rise with - Ships travel across
fuel → high CO₂, SO₂ growing trade volumes national waters
- Emits GHGs & air toxins - May offset gains in - Needs global cooperation
other sectors
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
[ 4. Lagging Behind Other Sectors ] [ 5. Climate Goals Alignment ] [ 6. Health & Environment Impact
]
| | |
- Aviation & road sectors - Paris Agreement requires - Sulphur and NOx emissions
have stronger norms all sectors to decarbonize harm marine ecosystems
- IMO norms still weak - Shipping must contribute and cause respiratory illness
or poorly enforced to net-zero by 2050
 [ Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) ]
|
[ Main environmental body under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) ]
|
[ Responsible for preventing ship-based marine pollution ]
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
[ Oil & Chemicals ] [ Sewage & Garbage ] [ Air Emissions & GHGs ]
| | |
- Enforces MARPOL rules - Global ship waste rules - Climate action in shipping
e climate policy
|
[ Origin and Evolution of MEPC ]
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ 1. IMO formed in 1948 ] [ 2. MEPC established in 1970s ] [ 3. First session: 1974 ]
| | |
- Initially focused on safety - Created after major oil spills - Originally called
and navigation and marine pollution crises "Marine Pollution Committee"
|
[ Mandate Expanded → Broader Environmental Focus ]
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Oversees global pollution rules ] [ Administers MARPOL Convention (1973/78) ]
| |
- Oil discharge norms - Most important global treaty to prevent
- Air pollution from ships marine pollution from ships
- Emission targets (GHG) - Covers all pollution types: oil, waste, gas
|
[ Recent Role in Climate Governance ]
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Platform for shipping decarbonization ] [ Hosts MEPC sessions (e.g., MEPC-83 in 2025) ]
| |
- Sets GHG targets - Attended by IMO members, observers, industry
- Aligns shipping with Paris goals - Shapes global maritim
 [ MEPC-83 (2025) – Key Overview ]
|
[ 83rd Session of Marine Environment Protection Committee (IMO) ]
|
[ Core Focus: Global GHG Emission Strategy for Shipping ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ 1. Carbon Pricing Debate ] [ 2. Market-Based Measures (MBMs) Proposed ]
| |
- First time global shipping - Carbon levy and emissions trading
considered mandatory emissions frameworks discussed
pricing - Objective: fair, global emission cost
\
[ 3. Five Major Proposals Presented ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
[ India ] [ Singapore ] [ EU ] [ China ] [ International Chamber of Shipping ]
| |
- Singapore’s hybrid model based on India’s proposal was adopted
|
[ 4. Approval of “IMO Net-Zero Framework” ]
|
- First mandatory emissions pricing system for any global industry
- Marked historic climate milestone for maritime transport
|
[ 5. Legal Status & Future Steps ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Not legally binding yet ] [ Requires formal adoption via MARPOL amendment ]
|
[ 6. Global Significance of MEPC-83 ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Historic move toward decarbonizing shipping ] [ Proved international climate cooperation is possible ]
 [ Five Proposals at MEPC-83 (2025) ]
|
[ Aim: Develop a fair, effective global framework for shipping emissions pricing ]
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
[ 1. ICS Proposal ] [ 2. China’s Proposal ] [ 3. EU Proposal ]
| | |
- Fixed CO₂ levy per tonne - Market-based mechanism - Fixed GHG levy
- Simple: more emissions = - Trade compliance units - Fund administered by IMO
more payment (like carbon credits) - Supports:
- Predictable & uniform price - Investment in alt. fuels • Green tech
- Price set by market • Developing countries
 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ 4. India’s Proposal ] [ 5. Singapore’s Proposal ] ← ✔ *Adopted at MEPC-83*
| |
- “Bridging mechanism” - Enhanced India’s model
- Only underperformers pay - Introduced GHG Fuel Standard (GFS)
- Rewards clean-fuel ships - Tiered system:
- Focused on fairness for • High-performing ships → surplus units (credits)
developing countries • Low-performing → buy remedial units
- Combined fairness, performance-based rewards, and accountability
 [ Proposal Selected at MEPC-83 (2025) ]
|
[ Singapore’s Hybrid Model – Based on India’s “Bridging Mechanism” ]
|
[ Now Called: IMO Net-Zero Framework for Shipping ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ First mandatory global carbon pricing ] [ Approved by vote: 63 in favor, 16 against, 22 abstained ]
|
[ Key Features of the Selected Model ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ GHG Fuel Standard (GFS) ] [ Tiered Emissions Incentive System ]
| |
- Sets emission thresholds - Efficient ships (below threshold) → earn **Surplus Units**
- Rates ships by fuel type - Polluting ships (above threshold) → buy **Remedial Units**
- Encourages clean fuel use - Units can be traded or banked
|
[ Why Singapore’s Proposal Was Selected ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
[ Balanced environmental & economic needs ] [ Avoided flat tax burden ] [ Incentivized green tech ] [ Fair to
developing countries ]
| | | |
- Flexible, not one-size-fits-all - No equal penalty for all - Early adopters rewarded - Lower entry barriers for
small nations
|
[ Broadest Political Support Among Proposals ]
|
- Fairness + performance-based rewards = global consensus
- Encouraged transition, not punishment
- Considered more inclusive and adaptive
|
[ Legal Status & Path to Enforcement ]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
[ Not yet binding – Needs MARPOL Annex VI amendment ] [ Circulated for 6 months among
IMO member states ]
| |
- Requires 2/3rd majority of voting countries - Can be blocked by 1/3rd countries with 50%
world tonnage
- If adopted, will take effect by 2027
- Emission reporting to begin from 2026