See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/265181265

Regulating Air Emissions from Ships The State of the Art on Methodologies,
Technologies and Policy Options

Article

CITATIONS READS

82 342

4 authors, including:

A. Miola Emiliano Giovine

European Commission European Commission
35 PUBLICATIONS 1,183 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 83 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marleen Marra
University College London
2 PUBLICATIONS 238 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by A. Miola on 19 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J R C R E F E R E N C E R E P O R T S

Regulating Air Emissions from Ships

The State of the Art on Methodologies,
Technologies and Policy Options
Apollonia Miola, Biagio Ciuffo, Emiliano Giovine, Marleen Marra

EUR 24602 EN

[Link] 1 29.11.2010 10:59

 The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, de-
velopment, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the European Commission, the JRC
functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close to the policy-making process,
it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being independent of special interests, whether
private or national.

European Commission
Joint Research Centre
Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Contact information
A. Miola
JRC - IES
Via Enrico Fermi, 2749 - 21027 - Ispra (VA) – Italy
[Link]@[Link]
IES Communication Office
ies-contact@[Link]

[Link]

This publication is a Reference Report by the Joint Research Centre

of the European Commission.

Legal Notice
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission
is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.

The use of trademarks in this publication does not constitute an endorsement by the European Commission.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server [Link]

PUBSY: JRC60732

EUR 24602 EN
ISBN 978-92-79-17733-0
ISSN 1018-5593
doi 10.2788/4171

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

© European Union, 2010

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Italy

[Link] 2 29.11.2010 10:59

 Regulating air emissions from ships: the state of the art on
methodologies, technologies and policy options

AUTHORS:

Apollonia Miola, Biagio Ciuffo, Emiliano Giovine, Marleen Marra

November 2010

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 1 11/26/10 11:42:54 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mr L. Hordijk, Mr A. Krasenbrink, Mrs M. Wenning, Mr A. Perujo, Mr C. Panayotis,

Mr H. Meijer, Ms A. Pridmore and Ms G. Mulhern for their comments and suggestions for this Report. Our
thanks also go to Mr J.P. Malingreau for his encouragement. Finally, we are grateful to all those who helped
to carry out the research activities which are summarised in this Reference Report.

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 2 11/26/10 11:42:55 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Executive summary

In recent years public concerns regarding the envi- The analysis suggests that air emissions from the
ronmental impacts of maritime transport have in- maritime transport sector account for a significant
creased. This is because maritime transport is the portion of total emissions, affecting air quality and
fifth largest contributor to air pollution and carbon contributing to climate change and human health
emissions, and the growth rate of trade makes the problems. In addition, the existing trend suggests
problem even more pressing. However, consider- that the situation will worsen in the future. CO2
able environmental improvements are obtainable emissions from shipping activities are estimated to
by changing shipping practices. The international account for 3-5% of total CO2. Moreover, it has been
regulatory framework that governs the sector estimated that, without any countermeasures, sul-
makes it complex to design policy strategy to abate phate emissions will increase by 10-20% over the
air emissions, such as greenhouse gases (GHGs), main shipping routes in 2012, contributing up to
from international maritime transport. 5.2% of the total tropospheric sulphate burden.
These results include uncertainty but also highlight
The current policy actions dealing with air emissions the urgent need to take action. Chapter 2 provides
relate mainly to the quality of fuel used and to a critical analysis of the main data and methodolo-
the technological options available. Market- gies available to estimate air emissions from ships.
based instruments such as emissions trading This chapter highlights some of the limitations of
are being discussed at international level within the current methodologies as well as the scarcity
the International Maritime Organization (IMO). and limited availability of data concerning maritime
Furthermore, the inclusion of the maritime transport transport activities. The analysis takes particular
sector within the EU Emission Trading Scheme is on account of the estimation and geographical char-
the EU strategy to address GHGs. The complexity acterisation of air emissions. The chapter classifies
of air pollution and climate change policies for the the different data sources which are available (or
international maritime transport sector calls for will be in the near future) to maritime transport re-
a wide range of considerations to be taken into searchers. A conclusion of this section is that there
account requiring policymakers: 1) to set binding is at present no optimum source of information, in
long-term emission reduction goals, 2) to take terms of accuracy, coverage and comprehensive-
action in a flexible manner, 3) to ensure knowledge ness. However, and this is key, different data sourc-
and technology sharing of innovative practices, and es may be used together in order to reduce their
4) transparency, administrative feasibility. overall uncertainties. Chapter 3 provides some
insights into how to design a sector-based policy
The following Reference Report summarises the strategy to abate air emissions from maritime
key findings of several years’ research activity and transport, taking into account the complexity of
provides a reference framework for analytical tools the current contribution of the sector to global and
designed to support the regulation of air emissions local air emissions. Criteria for selecting the most
from ships. It outlines the ‘state of the art’ with re- appropriate option are then discussed, focussing
gard to the main methodological aspects of design- on the cost effectiveness of different options. Here
ing policy measures to regulate air emissions from the basic aim is to select the option which achieves
maritime transport, namely identification of the im- specified objectives at least cost. The chapter iden-
pacts, estimation of emissions, and identification tifies the main elements which characterise this
and selection of technological and policy options approach. These will be taken into account in the
to abate air emissions from ships. The ultimate aim analysis of the technological and policy options to
of this Report is to provide analytical tools to help abate air emissions from ships carried out into the
define a policy strategy for regulating air emissions subsequent chapters. With respect to the techno-
from ships, by providing various insights into how logical options, Chapter 4 describes the technolo-
to best design and apply efficient and equitable gies that might be used to reduce fuel consumption
policy instruments. and pollutant emissions. The analysis provides
an estimation of the costs of these technologies,
Reducing the impacts of maritime transport on the which is key to assessing the feasibility of their ap-
environment is a challenging task, since these im- plication in the subsector.
pacts are not only due to navigation but also to the
activities carried out in ports. Chapter 1 analyses Chapter 5 provides an overview of the complexity
the main links between environmental impacts and of the maritime regulatory system and how envi-
activities/events of the maritime transport sector. ronmental issues are currently integrated into this

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 3 11/26/10 11:42:56 AM

 JRC Reference Report

framework, and defines the main elements of the acquisition puts the usefulness of the methodolo-
regulation. This chapter summarises the current gies proposed so far further into question. The in-
international debate on the regulation of GHGs creasing impact of maritime transport on the envi-
arising from international maritime transport. It ronment is also related to the growth rate of trade,
identifies the Kyoto Protocol’s principle “common which makes the problem even more pressing. This
but differentiated responsibilities and respective is related to the intensive nature of the production
capabilities” and the IMO’s “no more favorable and consumption of goods and services, which have
treatment” concept as the core elements of this de- been stimulated by several factors such as the new
bate. Chapter 6 outlines the main elements of the global dimension of modern production and con-
European Union’s position on regulating air emis- sumption which has re-shaped European and world
sions from international maritime transport, and trade, and the use of just-in-time techniques which
discusses the inclusion of international shipping in allow manufacturers and wholesalers/retailers to
the EU Emission Trading Scheme. dispense with warehouses. These issues call for
environmental strategies to regulate air emissions
Our results show that, because of the high un- from ships to be integrated into a broader frame-
certainty in air emissions estimations, further re- work which takes into account all the pillars relat-
search is required in this field. In fact, a scientific ing to the sustainable development of transport.
debate is now open on the most appropriate way to
address the issue of how to estimate air emissions. In conclusion, this Report identifies the meth-
The scarce or limited availability of data concern- odological aspects of designing an environmental
ing maritime transport activities has resulted in strategy to regulate air emissions from ships and
the widespread use of different calculation meth- illustrates how the current policy actions are inte-
odologies. In addition, the application of new tech- grated into an international framework.
nologies which enable more detailed traffic data

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 4 11/26/10 11:42:57 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Table of contents

Acknowledgments 2

Executive summary 3

List of Abbreviations 7

Introduction 8

1. Maritime transport activity and the environment: the impacts on air 10

1.1. Impacts on Air 12

1.2. Conclusion 14

2. Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector:

state of the art 15

2.1. An inventory of possible maritime data sources 19

2.1.1. Technical information on International vessels 20

2.1.2. Ship activities and geographic distribution of maritime traffic 20
2.1.3. Further information: emission factors 23

2.2. Concluding remarks 24

3. Reducing air emissions from ships – technological and policy options 25

4. Abatement technologies: estimated performance and costs 27

4.1. Energy Efficiency Design Index 33

5. The international framework for regulating air emissions from ships 34

5.1. International mechanisms for reducing maritime transport emissions:

the current debate 36

6. The EU policy on air and GHG emissions from international shipping 39

6.1. Legal constraints on EU environmental policy regulation of air emissions from ships 41

7. Conclusion 43

8. References 44

Annex A. The main technological options for abating air emissions from ships 50

Annex B - The Law of the Sea: Introductory summary 60

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 5 11/26/10 11:42:58 AM

 JRC Reference Report

List of Figures

Figure 1. Table 7.
Fuel consumption estimation and evolution Cost efficiency and abatement potential
from different sources. Our elaborations for machinery related options 29
on IMO data (IMO, 2009). 17
Table 8.
Figure 2. Cost efficiency and abatement potential
AIS coverage areas. Image on top by courtesy for operation related options 30
of Marinetraffi[Link], ©2010, Marinetraffi[Link]
-University of the Aegean; imagine down the LMIU Table 9.
network by courtesy of Lloyd’s List Group, Cost for fuel shifting in 2020 both with
© 2008 Informa plc, All rights reserved. 21 respect to the tonnes of fuel and
to the energy produced 32
Figure 3.
Ships’ positions in the Mediterranean Sea Table 10.
in the period 15-18 February 2010 retrieved Cost effectiveness of fuel switching for SOx
by the marinetraffi[Link] AIS network. reduction measures per €/tonne abated 32
Our elaborations. 22
Table 11.
Figure 4. Potential emissions reduction using
Sulphur content of fuels – Our elaboration shore-side electricity for the UK 52
on data from EEB (2008) 31
Table 12.
Shore-Side electricity costs (€/tonne) (ENTEC,
2005A, Table 5.2, Page 39) 53
List of Tables
Table 13.
Costs used in Bosch et al. (2009) for NOx control
Table 1. methods (Table 6.4, page 33) 55
Impacts due to maritime transport 11
Table 14.
Table 2. Cost effectiveness of NOx reduction measures
Classification of the main studies concerning per €/tonne 55
the evaluation of emissions
from maritime transport 16 Table 15.
Indicative scrubber costs
Table 3. for different ship categories 56
CO2 emissions from international shipping:
different results from different sources 18 Table 16.
Scrubber costs used in Bosch et al. (2009) 56
Table 4.
Criteria for selection of pollution control Table 17.
instruments. 25 Cost effectiveness of SOx reduction measures
per €/tonne abated 57
Table 5.
Cost efficiency and abatement potential
for ship design related options 28

Table 6.
Cost efficiency and abatement potential
for propulsion related options 28

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 6 11/26/10 11:42:59 AM

 JRC Reference Report

List of Abbreviations

AIS Automatic Identification System MD Marine Distillates

Automated Mutual-Assistance MDO Marine Diesel Oil
AMVER
Vessel Rescue System
Marine Environment
Convention for Long-range MEPC
CLRTAP Protection Committee
Transboundary Air Pollution
METS Maritime Emission Trading Scheme
Dwt Deadweight tonnage
MGO Marine Gas Oil
ECA Emission Controlled Area
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
Emission Database for Global
EDGAR
Atmospheric Research Maritime Sectoral
MSCM
EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index Crediting Mechanism

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone MERS Maritime Emission Reduction Scheme

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation National Environmental Research

NERI
Institute of Denmark
U.S. Energy Information
EIA OSV Off-shore Support Vessel
Administration
EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency PM Particulate Matter
ETS Emission Trading Scheme RINA Registro Italiano Navale
FBC Fluidized Bed Combustion SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
GHG Greenhouse gas SECA SOx Emission Control Area
GT Gross Tonnage SFOC Specific Fuel Oil Consumption
HAM Humid Air Motor SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants Ship Traffic Energy
STEEM
HFO High Fuel Oil Environmental Model

International Civil Aviation TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit

ICAO
Organization
United Nations Conference on
UNCTAD
International Comprehensive Trade and Development
ICOADS
Ocean-Atmosphere data-set
United Nations Framework
UNFCCC
IEA International Energy Agency Convention of Climate Change
IEM Internal Engine Modification 1982 United Nations Convention
UNCLOS
of the Law of the Sea
IMO International Maritime Organization
United Nations Economic
Joint Research Centre of the UNECE
JRC Commission for Europe
European Commission
LMIU Lloyd’s Maritime Intelligence Unit USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

LMIS Lloyd’s Maritime Information System VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

LRF Lloyd’s Register Fairplay WiFE Water in Fuel Emulsion

LRIT Long Range Identification Tracking

MAC Marginal Abatement Cost

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 7 11/26/10 11:43:01 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Introduction

In recent years, public concerns regarding the The present Reference Report summarises the main
environmental impacts of maritime transport findings of a several year’s research activity1 which
have increased. The analysis of the main impacts was carried out to provide a reference framework
of maritime transport activities on air quality of the analytical tools for regulating air emissions
highlights the fact that the sector is responsible from ships. It outlines the state of the art concern-
for a notable amount of total CO2 emissions and air ing the main methodologies for designing policy
pollutants. In addition, the existing trends suggest measures to regulate air emissions from maritime
that the situation will worsen in the future. transport, namely identification of the impacts,
estimation of emissions caused by shipping activi-
Indeed, CO2 emissions from shipping activities are ties, and identification and selection of technologi-
estimated to account for 3-5% of total CO2 emis- cal and policy options to abate air emissions from
sions (see for example IMO, 2009). In addition, ships. The ultimate aim is to give analytical tools
estimates show that in 2050 maritime transport to help define a policy strategy for regulating air
will be responsible for 15% of total CO2 emissions. emissions from ships, providing some insights into
For other air pollutants, in Lauer et al. (2009) it how to design and apply efficient and equitable
has been estimated that, in the event of no coun- policy instruments. The first step to take towards
termeasures being taken, sulphate emissions will achieving this objective is to accurately assess the
increase by 10-20% over the main routes in 2012, air emissions from the maritime transport sector in
contributing up to 5.2% to the total tropospheric terms of quantification and location.
sulphate burden.
Chapter 1 of this Report identifies the main envi-
Despite this scenario, considerable environmen- ronmental impacts related to maritime transport
tal improvements could be obtained by changing activities, focusing on impacts on air quality, and
shipping practices (Krozer et al., 2003). The current gives a critical analysis of the main methodologies
policy actions dealing with emissions relate mainly for estimating air emissions from ships.
to the quality of fuel used and to the available tech-
nological options. Chapter 2 classifies these methodologies on the
basis of the approach followed (bottom-up or top-
Market-based instruments such as emissions trad- down) with respect to the total emissions calcula-
ing are being discussed at international level within tion and geographic characterisation. This chapter
the International Maritime Organization (IMO). highlights some limitations of the current method-
ologies and the scarcity and limited availability of
Furthermore, the inclusion of the maritime trans- data concerning maritime transport activities.
port sector within the EU Emission Trading Scheme
is on the EU strategy to address GHGs. The Report recommends using cost effectiveness
analysis as the basic criterion for selecting and/or
The complexity of air pollution and climate change combining policy options to design a sectoral envi-
policies for the international maritime transport ronmental strategy (chapter 3).
sector calls for a wide range of considerations to be
taken into account (Montgomery, 1972; Tietenberg,
2003) requiring policymakers: 1) to set binding
long-term emission reduction goals, 2) to take
action in a flexible manner, 3) to ensure knowledge
and technology sharing of innovative practices, and
4) transparency, administrative feasibility. 1 The results of this activity have been published in several
EUR reports: Miola , A., Ciuffo, B., Marra, M., Giovine, E.
(2010) “Analytical framework to regulate air emissions
from maritime transport” (EUR24297 – ISBN 978-92-79-
15308-2); Miola et al. (2009) “External costs of transport
Case study: Maritime transport“(EUR23837 – ISBN
978-92-79 12534-8); Miola et al. (2008) “Review of the
measurement of external costs of transport in theory and
practice” (EUR23714 – ISBN 978-92-79-11279-9); Andreoni
et al. (2008) Cost effectiveness analysis of the Emission
Abatement in the Shipping Sector Emissions” (EUR23715 –
ISBN 978-92-79-11280-5).

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 8 11/26/10 11:43:02 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Chapter 4 describes the technologies that might This aspect is related to the intensive nature of
be used to reduce fuel consumption and pollutant production and consumption of goods and serv-
emissions. The different technologies are grouped ices, which have been stimulated by several fac-
into five categories depending on the specific tors such as the new global dimension of modern
sector in which they are implemented (Ship design, production and consumption which has re-shaped
Propulsion, Machinery, Operation and Fuel - European and world trade, and the use of just-in-
Wartsila, 2009). The analysis gives an estimation time techniques which allow manufacturers and
of the costs of such technologies, which is a key wholesalers/retailers to dispense with warehous-
consideration in assessing the feasibility of their es (OECD, 2002).
application in the sector.
These issues call for the integration of environ-
Chapter 5 summarises the current international de- mental strategies for regulating air emissions from
bate on the regulation of GHGs from international ships into a broader framework which incorporates
maritime transport. This chapter identifies the Kyo- all the pillars of sustainable transport.
to Protocol’s principle “common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities” and In conclusion, this Report identifies the meth-
the IMO’s “no more favorable treatment” concept odological aspects of designing an environmental
as the core elements of this debate. strategy to regulate air emissions from ships and
describes how to integrate this strategy in an inter-
Finally, Chapter 6 outlines the main elements of the national framework.
European Union’s position on regulating air emis-
sions from international maritime transport, and
discusses the inclusion of international shipping in
the EU Emission Trading Scheme.

Our results show that, given the high level of un-

certainty in air emissions estimations, further re-
search is needed in this field. In fact, a scientific
debate is currently underway on the most proper
way estimate air emissions. The scarce or limited
availability of data concerning maritime transport
activities has led to a plethora of different calcula-
tion methodologies to estimate air emissions from
shipping over the past decades.

In addition, the application of new technologies for

more detailed traffic data acquisition puts the use-
fulness of methodologies proposed so far further
into question.

Moreover, as has been pointed out, the increasing

relevance of the environmental impacts of maritime
transport is also related to the growth rate of trade,
which makes the problem even more pressing.

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 9 11/26/10 11:43:03 AM

 JRC Reference Report

1. Maritime transport activity and the environment:

the impacts on air

Reducing the impacts of maritime transport on the • construction and maintenance of the port
environment is a challenging task, since these im- terminal in terms of land consumption and
pacts are not only due to navigation but also de- waste generated.
pend on a number of other activities, such as those
carried out in ports for instance. The main maritime Each maritime transport activity carried out in
transport activities are summarised in the follow- port, at sea or during ship construction/maintena-
ing categories (Bickel et al. (2006)): nce/dismantling, results in different environmen-
tal impacts on air, water, ecosystems and other
• navigation, which involves the transport, stor- services. These impacts, as well as those deriving
age and loading/unloading of goods and pas- from accidental events or/and illegal actions, have
sengers (the activities that deserve the most to be considered when evaluating the overall im-
attention are mooring, docking and leaving pact of the maritime transport sector on environ-
the port); mental quality.

• construction, maintenance, cleaning and dis- The links between environmental impacts and ac-
mantling of ships and vessels, which can ei- tivities/events of the maritime transport sector are
ther be carried out at port or in nearby areas; shown in Table 1.

10 Maritime transport activity and the environment: the impacts on air

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 10 11/26/10 11:43:04 AM

 JRC Reference Report

AIR WATER SOIL/SEDIMENT ECOSYSTEM OTHER

Global Air pollution impact

Habitat Loss/Degradation
Activities-events/Impacts

Local Air Pollution (NOx,

SO2, CO2, CO, VOC, PM)

Soil/sediment pollution

Land consumption

Waste generation
Water pollution

Water turbidity

Acidification

Biodiv. loss

Congestion
Vibration

Erosion
Noise

Odour
Manoeuvring
Loading &
Unloading/ Operations
on terminals
Hotelling (lighting, heating,
refrigeration, ventilation,
etc.)
Dredging
Land traffic (heavy
vehicle, railway)
In ports

Waste disposal/illegal dumping

Port expansion/ Infrastructures
construction and maintenance
Fuel deposits
Discharge of ballast water
Dumping of black (sewage)
and gray (shower, sink,
and galley) water
Bulk handling and
Goods movement
Industrial activities
Spills
Cruise
llegal dumping
Dumping of black (sewage)
At sea

and gray (shower, sink,

and galley) water

Spills

Hull paintings
Ships building,
maintenance,
dismantling

Metal degreasing

Demolition

Table 1. Impacts due to maritime transport activities, including illegal activities and accidental events.
Source: A. Miola et al. (2009: 23).

Maritime transport activity and the environment: the impacts on air 11

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 11 11/26/10 11:43:05 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Most maritime transport activities have an impact 1.1. Impacts on Air

on water, as can be expected due to their proximity
to the sea. In particular, several chemical products Emissions from the maritime transport sector rep-
used for transport activities as well as substances resent a significant and increasing source of air
transported by ships can end up being discharged pollution.
into the sea, causing water pollution. These dis-
charges can derive from authorised activities, ac- The health and environmental impacts of air pollut-
cidents and illegal actions. ants are highly dependent on the proximity of the
emission sources to sensitive receptor sites. This
Soil pollution arising from the maritime transport means that, compared to land-based sources, at
sector is mainly the result of the terrestrial activi- least some maritime emissions have less obvious
ties in port areas which can lead to soil and sedi- health and environmental impacts since they can
ment contamination, acidification, the degrada- be released far from populated areas or sensitive
tion of natural habitats and the consequent loss of ecosystems. However, in harbour cities ship emis-
biodiversity. In addition, port activities and their sions are often a dominant source of urban pollu-
related infrastructures in these areas occupy and tion and need to be addressed, in particular when
consume land. considering fine particulate matter.

In terms of air pollution impacts, ship emissions to Furthermore, emissions from ships are transported
the atmosphere comprise ozone and aerosol pre- in the atmosphere over several hundreds of kilome-
cursors (NOx, CO, VOCs, SO2, etc.) and the emis- tres, and thus can contribute to air quality problems
sions of greenhouse gases (GHG). The effects of on land even if they are emitted at sea. This pathway
these pollutants are well documented. SO2 and NOx is especially relevant for the deposition of sulphur
can become converted into sulphate and nitrate and nitrogen compounds (Cofala et al., 2007).
particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated
with increased mortality and morbidity. Shipping In general, all ship activities lead to air pollutant
emissions contribute notably to the formation of emissions (Trozzi, 2003). Concerning ship build-
ground-level ozone, especially in closed regions ing/maintenance/dismantling activities, the prin-
(e.g. the Mediterranean region, etc.). cipal emissions are dust, particles, gases (e.g.
from welding), odours and aerosols. Considering
The deposition of sulphur and nitrogen contributes specific activities, the emission of volatile organic
to excess critical loads of acidity. Nitrogen oxides compounds (VOCs) from metal degreasing and
lead to eutrophication, which affects biodiversity painting activities represents a major problem
both on land and in coastal waters. An additional (European Environment Agency, 2002). As regards
contribution of shipping to climate change is hull surface cleaning, paint removal, changes of
brought by the darker fraction of the particulate zinc anodes, and paint application, the main ele-
matter emitted, known as black carbon. This ments that have an impact on the environment are
contribution is due to GHG emissions and to the dust emissions (from sandblasting, grinding, etc.)
aliquot of particulate matter defined as black and emissions of solvents, where solvents contain
carbon. Black carbon can absorb energy from VOCs and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (Hayman
incoming sunlight. This phenomenon is particularly et al., 2000). The demolition or major modification
relevant in the Arctic area, where black carbon is of ships can produce asbestos, heavy metals, hy-
responsible for accelerating the melting process of drocarbons, ozone depleting substances and other
snow and ice. Warming in the Arctic area has an pollutants. As already mentioned, all these ship
impact on the Arctic climate and thus on the global building/maintenance/dismantling activities can
climate system. either be carried out in the port or in other areas.
It should also be taken into account that, for eco-
For the scope of this Report, the next paragraph nomic reasons, many shipping vessels use heavy
provides a detailed analysis of the impacts of fuel oil with high sulphur content (just to give an
maritime transport on air quality and GHGs idea, the sulphur content of standard marine fuel
emissions. This analysis will help identify the is 2,700 times higher than that of conventional die-
main fields of policy intervention for abating air sel for cars). The main air emissions resulting from
emissions from ships. burning this type of fuel include:

12 Maritime transport activity and the environment: the impacts on air

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 12 11/26/10 11:43:07 AM

 JRC Reference Report

• Sulphur Dioxide (SO2); PM can contribute to many serious health problems

including premature mortality and asthma attacks
• Nitrogen Oxides (NOX); (IAPH, 2007).

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); The presence of these pollutants has local and glo-
bal impacts. Impacts on local (or regional) air qual-
• Particulate Matter (PM); ity are mainly linked to pollutants such as PM, NOx
and sulphur, while the GHGs (e.g. CO2) have a glo-
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs. bal impact on climate.

The amount of gases emitted from marine engines As far as local air pollution is concerned, port areas
into the atmosphere is directly related to total fuel have historically developed in very close proxim-
oil consumption, which depends on different fac- ity to urban areas, and port operations can affect
tors such as the hull shape, the loading conditions, the people living and working in these areas. The
the roughness of the hull, the condition of the en- negative effects on local air quality and human
gine, etc. Auxiliary engines also contribute to the health are largely dominated by the presence of
total exhaust gas emissions. This contribution to air NOx, PM (2.5 or 10), acid deposition and nitrogen
emissions is particularly significant for cruise ships, deposition.
which have a constant need for ancillary power to
meet lighting and ventilation demands both at sea NOx emissions also can cause nutrient overload in
and in port. In general, ship emissions in port de- water bodies, which can result in eutrophication.
pend on manoeuvring time and cargo operations The excess of nutrient nitrogen can be detrimen-
(vessel-type dependent) (Endresen et al., 2003). tal to the fragile balance of ecosystems, including
marine ecosystems. In addition, particles and NO2
Emissions can also result from onboard incinera- linked to air emissions from maritime transport ac-
tion of waste, which can lead to dioxins and other tivities can have impacts on visibility by reducing
heavy metals being released into the atmosphere. the visual range, as highlighted by Holland et al.
(2005).
Focusing on all port operations and air pollution,
the main factor to take into consideration is that SO2 emissions also negatively impact public health;
each category – ocean/sea-going vessels, harbour in particular, sulphate particles can induce asthma,
craft, cargo handling equipment, trucks and loco- bronchitis and heart failure.
motives – is mainly powered by diesel engines,
which are significant contributors to air pollution. Sulphur and nitrogen compounds emitted from
ships can also produce impacts not directly linked
The most relevant shipping activities that contrib- to human health. They can, indeed, cause acid
ute to air pollution are (Trozzi, 2003): depositions that can be detrimental to the natural
environment (lakes, rivers, soils, fauna and flora).
• loading and unloading of petroleum products Emissions of these compounds at sea can exert an
(VOCs); influence on vegetation and land-based objects
many thousands of kilometres away.
• dry docks (evaporative VOCs);
Health effects can result in the reduction of oxygen
• passenger car traffic (combustion and evapo- delivery to the body’s tissues and organs (such as
rative VOCs); the heart and the brain). CO can have significant
cardiovascular effects on those who suffer from
• heavy vehicle and railway traffic (combustion heart disease. The central nervous system can also
compounds). be affected. Breathing high levels of CO can result
in blurred vision, reduced ability to work or learn,
As a result, especially in port areas, ships contrib- and reduced manual dexterity. CO also contributes
ute to harmful levels of pollutants such as particu- to the formation of smog (IAPH, 2007).
late matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (O3), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon mon- At the global level, carbon dioxide is the most
oxide (CO), and lead (Pb). Nitrogen oxide (NOx) and significant trace constituent that has an effect on

Maritime transport activity and the environment: the impacts on air 13

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 13 11/26/10 11:43:08 AM

 JRC Reference Report

global climate change. Shipping is one of the con- areas where it plays an important role in the accel-
tributors to the world’s total CO2 emissions: 870 eration of the snow and ice melting process. This
million tonnes in 2007, increasing by a factor of be- phenomenon, which is particularly relevant in
tween 2.2 and 3.3 in 2050 according to IMO (2009). the northern hemisphere where most ship activi-
ties are carried out, may significantly contribute
The study by the IMO (2000) highlights that, due to modification of the climate system of the Arctic
to the highly nonlinear response in ozone forma- region and thus that of the entire planet. At the
tion from emissions of precursors such as CO and moment, the shipping sector is estimated to be re-
NOx, ship emissions over oceans far removed from sponsible for around 2% of total black carbon emis-
industrial regions such as the Atlantic and Pacific sions (Lauer et al., 2007). This percentage reaches
Oceans generate higher levels of ozone formation the interval from 10 to 50% near the major shipping
than emissions over polluted coastal regions (e.g. routes (Marmer et al., 2009) and, furthermore, it is
the North Sea). constantly increasing.

Moreover, the study by Schreier et al. (2006) un-

derlines that particle emissions from ships change 1.2. Conclusion
the physical properties of low clouds, due to the
so-called indirect aerosol effect. Particles and their The analysis of the main impacts of maritime
precursors from ship emissions can act as cloud transport activities on air highlights the
condensation nuclei (CCN) in the water-vapour sat- responsibility of the sector for a notable amount of
urated environment of the maritime cloud. Aerosols total CO2 emissions and air pollutants. For example,
can re-radiate the sun’s energy, causing temporary in Lauer et al. (2009) it has been estimated that,
cooling effects that mask the long-term warming without any countermeasures, in 2012 sulphate
effect of GHGs. In addition, ship emissions modify emissions will increase by 10-20% over the
existing clouds by decreasing the effective radius, main routes, contributing up to 5.2% to the total
while they increase droplet concentration and opti- tropospheric sulphate burden. These results show
cal thickness. These effects seem to be particularly the complexity of the situation and the urgent need
prevalent in areas where the background pollutant for action to be taken. The increasing pressure
concentrations are low, as at open sea. of the maritime sector on the environment could
be halved by adopting local and global emission
An additional contribution of shipping to climate restriction policies. The first step to take towards
change is brought about by the darker fraction of achieving this objective is to quantify the air
the PM emitted, known as black carbon. Black car- emissions from the maritime transport sector.
bon accounts for around 10% of the total PM emit- The next chapter gives an overview of the main
ted (Lack et al., 2009). Its capability to absorb the methods for estimating the air emissions deriving
energy derived from incoming sunlight makes it from shipping activities and compares their results
particularly dangerous in the Arctic and Antarctic in order to define a reference framework.

14 Maritime transport activity and the environment: the impacts on air

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 14 11/26/10 11:43:09 AM

 JRC Reference Report

2. Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport

sector: state of the art

As highlighted in the previous chapter, emissions ticular geographic cell and evaluating the
from the maritime transport sector account for a global activity which is carried out on it, no
significant portion of total emissions, affecting matter which vessel carries out the activity.
air quality and contributing to climate change and Emissions from the individual cells are then
human health problems. The estimation and geo- aggregated to calculate total emissions and
graphical characterisation of maritime transport assumptions are made in order to assign total
emissions are therefore important to the work of, emissions to the different ships (or at least to
for instance, atmospheric scientists or policy mak- the different categories);
ers who try to analyse and address the problems
associated with them. • Full top-down approach: total emissions are
calculated without considering the character-
In general, the level of detail achieved and achieva- istics of the individual vessels, and are later
ble within a certain study depends on the approach spatially assigned.
followed (bottom-up or top down) and the specific
purpose of the analysis itself. In Table 2 the key works found in the literature re-
view are subdivided according to the above-men-
For example, emissions of CO2 may be analysed tioned classification. Due to data availability, near-
at a global scale, whereas NOx and SOx emissions ly all the studies evaluate emissions attributable to
should be analysed at a more local scale since their vessels whose gross tonnage (referred to as GT in
greatest effects are produced on the environment the remainder of this Report) is greater than 100.
in which they are released.
Several inventories have been established over the
In a bottom-up approach, each single element in- past two decades.
volved in a certain phenomenon is modelled and
then the global impact is evaluated by aggregating The works are grouped on the basis of the classifi-
the impacts of the different elements. cation provided in the preceding paragraph and or-
dered more or less chronologically. The debate on
For the evaluation of emissions arising from mari- the evaluation of maritime emissions is still open
time transport, two dimensions have to be con- and has resulted in several different estimations
sidered: the quantity of emissions produced and being made over the past decade. These are not all
where they are emitted. For both dimensions we that easy to compare, since different contexts are
can use a bottom-up or a top-down approach, or a analysed and different assumptions are made.
mixture of the two:

• Full bottom-up approach: the pollution that

a single ship emits in a specific location is
evaluated. By integrating the evaluation
over time and over the fleet it is possible to
evaluate total emissions and their geographic
distribution;

• Bottom-up approach in the evaluation of total

emissions, but top-down in the geographical
characterisation: a single vessel is considered
in the analysis, but nothing is known about its
position. By making assumptions, it is possi-
ble to provide an estimate of the total emis-
sions which are later geographically charac-
terised using different criteria;

• Top-down approach in the evaluation of total

emissions, but bottom-up in the geographi-
cal characterisation: this analysis starts by
considering a single maritime route or a par-

Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art 15

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 15 11/26/10 11:43:10 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Table 2. Classification of the main studies concerning the evaluation of emissions

from maritime transport

Dimension 2:
Emissions geographical characterisation

Approaches Bottom-up Top-down

Entec (2005)
Wang et al. (2007a, 2007b)
Corbett et al. (2009) Endresen al. (2003,2004*,2007)
Jalkanen et al. (2009) Corbett and Koehler (2003*,2004*)
Olesen et al. (2009) Eyring et al. (2005)
Bottom-up
Schrooten et al. (2009) Winther (2008)*
Dimension 1: Miola et al. (2009) Dalsoren et al. (2008)
Emissions Wang et al. (2010) IMO (2009)
evaluation Paxian et al. (2010)
Tzannatos (2010)

Georgakaki et al. (2005) Corbett and Fischbeck (1997)

Wang and Corbett (2005, 2007) Corbett et al. (1999)
Top-down
Wang et al. (2008) Skjolsvik et al. (2000)
Winebrake et al. (2009) Endresen et al. (2007)

* Paper does not include the geographical characterisation of emissions

In IMO (2009) an attempt is made to homogenise opening the debate). In addition, the graph clearly
the results of different studies. Figure 1 shows the highlights the high level of uncertainty introduced
estimates of the IMO expert group which confirm by the different methodologies used to estimate
the results from Corbett and Koelher (2003) rather emissions.
than those from Endresen et al. (2003) (the works

16 Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 16 11/26/10 11:43:11 AM

 JRC Reference Report

400
Corbett and Kohler (2003)

Eyring et al. (2005)

350 IEA (2007)

Endresen et al.
(2007)
Fuel Consumption (10 6 tons)

300 IMO (2007)

IMO (2009)
IMO (2009)

250

200

150

100
80

85

95
75

90

00

05

10

Year
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

Figure 1. Fuel consumption estimation and evolution from different sources. Our elaborations
on IMO data (IMO, 2009).

This uncertainty is numerically quantified in Table distortions, no attempt is made here to homogenise
3, which considers the estimated CO2 emissions for the results; however, most of the studies consider
different base years. The year of reference varies the year 2001.
and, in order to avoid the introduction of further

Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art 17

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 17 11/26/10 11:43:13 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Table 3. CO2 emissions from international shipping: different results from different sources

Global CO2 Emissions from

Study Base Year
Maritime Transport (Mt)

Corbett et al. (1999) 1993 453

Skjolsvik et al. (2000) 1996 430

Endresen et al. (2003) 2001 557
Corbett and Koelher (2003) 2001 805
Eyring et al. (2005) 2001 812
International Shipping*

Endresent et al. (2007) 2000 625

Wang et al. (2008) 2001 650
Edgar (2009) 2001 440
IEA 2001 550
EIA 2001 610
IMO consensus (2009) 2001 652
Eyring et al. (2009) 2000 780
Edgar (2009) 2004 520
Dalsoren et al. (2008) 2004 654
IMO consensus (2009) 2004 755
Eyring et al. (2009) 2005 960
Corbett and Koelher (2003) 2001 912
Total Shipping

Eyring et al. (2005) 2001 887

IMO consensus (2009) 2001 784
Paxian et al. (2010) 2006 695
IMO consensus (2009) 2006 1008
Wang et al. (2008) 2001 90
200 M
EU**

Edgar (2009) 2001 62

Entec (2005) 2000 121
Paxian et al. (2010) 2006 112
Tot
EU

Schrooten et al. (2009) 2005 77

* International Shipping is defined as the shipping activities carried out between the ports of different countries. Total Shipping
is made up of International Shipping, Domestic Shipping and Fishing.
** EU is defined as the union of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 200 M
refers to emissions which are estimated to be emitted within 200 nautical miles from the coast, whereas the total estimate (EU
Tot) refers to all traffic to and from EU countries.

18 Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 18 11/26/10 11:43:14 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Regarding global CO2 emissions, Table 3 shows a is adopted. However, in order to overcome the un-
slight convergence of the different studies, which certainties connected to the lack of information on
leads to an estimate with a higher degree of con- shipping activities, the authors use vessel move-
sensus (more similar results are obtained now that ment data from the Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence
more reliable information on vessels’ activities are Unit (LMIU) ship statistics. Such movements are
available). The table also includes the estimate identified for each vessel by its calls at successive
provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA) ports. The shortest path is assumed to have been
and by the U.S. Energy Information Administration followed by the ship between each pair of ports
(EIA) as reported by IMO (2009) (tonnes of fuel (origin and destination).
sales have been converted into tonnes of CO2 ac-
cording to Corbett et al., 2009). In this way, a single source of information (LMIU
statistics) is used both for technological and activ-
Table 3 also reports the average CO2 emissions es- ity related information about a ship.
timated by Eyring et al. (2009). Moreover, in their
work, Eyring et al. (2009) report the upper and low- Unfortunately, only a portion (approximately 50%)
er limits of global CO2 emissions as retrieved from of the movements of a vessel’s fleet is monitored.
the same studies reported in this report. In particu-
lar, for the year 2000, the lower limit is found to be In order to overcome this problem, Faber et al.
560 Tg(CO2), while the upper limit is 1,360 Tg(CO2). (2009) evaluates the total fuel consumption and
emissions from the maritime sector and compares
For the year 2005, the lower limit is 450 Tg(CO2), these with the so-called “consensus” estimates
while the upper limit is 1,660 Tg(CO2). This means of IMO (2009). They then apply the ratio between
that from 2000 to 2005 overall uncertainty has in- consensus estimates and their estimates to
creased from 50% to 100% of the total estimates. correct results for a more limited context (i.e.
fuel consumption and emissions from European
This further confirms the need for different ap- maritime trade activities).
proaches to the problem (improvements are expect-
ed in the coming years as a result of the application The next section classifies the different data sourc-
of more sophisticated full bottom-up approaches). es which are available (or will be in the near future)
for researchers of maritime traffic.
Such uncertainties are also reflected in the stud-
ies that consider the European context. Results are
reported in Table 3 (EU Tot). Different approaches 2.1. An inventory of possible
yield a 70% uncertainty level for the estimation of maritime data sources
emissions due to the maritime traffic in European
ports for approximately the same year. In particu- A key factor in defining the best approach to use for
lar, in Schrooten et al. (2009) no hypothesis on the the evaluation of emissions is the availability of in-
vessels’ activities is made, but a proxy of the Euro- formation concerning maritime traffic and vessels.
pean Origin/Destination Demand matrix for goods The initial approaches adopted in the research to
(Eurostat, 2000) is used. date (bottom-up for emissions evaluations, top-
down for geographical characterisations) relied
This transportation demand is then assigned to exclusively upon information about vessels, and
the European waterway network (in which mari- made different assumptions on their activities. This
time routes are explicitly taken into account) in approach is probably plausible (at least to a certain
order to derive the traffic figures on the different extent, see for example IMO, 2009), but it has cer-
routes. The Lloyd’s Register of Shipping is then tainly led to the current high level of uncertainties.
used to estimate the other information required for
the emissions calculation (such as the engine load In the following sub-sections we will describe the
factor, etc.). Results of the study are available upon main sources of information. The following infor-
request through the EX-TREMIS project website mation is usually necessary for the evaluation of
([Link] ship emissions:

Paxian et al. (2010) and Faber et al. (2009) take a Ship type/category/length/GT (for possible aggre-
different approach. Here a full bottom-up approach gation into groups)

Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art 19

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 19 11/26/10 11:43:15 AM

 JRC Reference Report

1. Ship type/category/length/GT public/HomePage?fs=HomePage, or Digital Seas,

(for possible aggregation into groups) [Link] and in a
2. Power (kW) of the ship’s main number of ship registers from around the world (e.g.
and auxiliary engines the Registro Italiano Navale, RINA, Germanischer
3. Age of the main engines Lloyd, GL). However, these are not mentioned in the
4. Ship’s service speed scientific literature that we have reviewed.
5. Engine consumption (g/kWh)
6. Engine running hours 2.1.2. Ship activities and geographic
7. Engine load distribution of maritime traffic
8. Fuel type
9. Emission factors (gpollutant/ g fue) An important parameter for the calculation of emis-
or (gpollutant/ kWh) sions is the definition of the number of hours each
10. Routes covered by maritime traffic ship spends at sea. Until a few years ago, this in-
formation was retrieved from specific studies
Points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 relate to technical informa- which provided average information (in Endresen
tion on vessels. Some of these can be found in et al., 2003, it is suggested that data be taken from
publicly accessible data sources, while others (in CONCAWE, 1994, or [Link]
particular the power, fuel used, engine number and subjects/10/12/40/ which provides statistics from
type) are only available in a few commercial data- Norway for the year 2000).
bases. Points 4, 6 and 7 relate to information on the
typical activity of a vessel which must be collected Such references can be useful for rough estimations
separately or by using some other available data of emissions, but they cannot be considered satis-
source. Emission factors and other information that factory if compared with another source of this kind
can be useful for refining the estimation have to be of information, the Automatic Identification System
found in the scientific literature. Maritime traffic (AIS). The AIS was introduced by the International
routes are important for the spatial characterisa- Maritime Organization’s (IMO) International Conven-
tion of activities. Below we outline with vessels’ tion for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS, 1974). As of
technical specifications, then we present possible December 2004, all international voyaging ships of
data sources of information on vessel activities and 300 GT or more and all passenger ships regardless
we finish with emission factors. of size are required to have this system aboard (for
further details see [Link]
2.1.1. Technical information on [Link]?topic_id=754). The main motivation for
International vessels the adoption of this system was that it can provide
precise information about the ships’ position that can
Only two sources of information on vessels have be used for collision avoidance (Ou and Zhu, 2008).
been used in the studies. These are analysed here:
It is estimated that about 40,000 ships carried AIS
• the World Merchant Fleet Database provided equipment in 2008 (Ou and Zhu, 2008).
by the Lloyd’s Register Fairplay (LRF2), (http://
[Link]/) Information exchanged by each ship are (Ou and
Zhu, 2008):
• the Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit (LMIU) 3
database ([Link] • STATIC: IMO number, length and beam, call
[Link]) sign and name, vessel type;

Other, less complete information on ships can be • DYNAMIC: position, time, course and speed
found in some dedicated search engines (such as over ground, heading, rate of turn;
Equasis [Link]
• VOYAGE RELATED: draft, possible hazardous
cargo, destination.
2 In June 2009, Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay was taken over by
the American IHS. The new name for the company is now
IHS Fairplay. In this report the old name was kept so as not
to confuse the readers who may not be aware of the change.
3 The name of the Lloyd’s Maritime Intelligence Unit has
changed in Lloyd’s List Intelligence. As above, in this report
the old name was kept so as not to confuse the readers

20 Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 20 11/26/10 11:43:16 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Figure 2. AIS coverage areas. Image on top by courtesy of Marinetraffi[Link],

©2010, Marinetraffi[Link] -University of the Aegean; imagine down the LMIU network
by courtesy of Lloyd’s List Group, © 2008 Informa plc, All rights reserved.

The signal sent by each ship is not encrypted and main providers of AIS data are Marinetraffi[Link]
thus can be read by any AIS receiver in a range of ([Link]fi[Link]), Lloyd’s MIU AIS (www.
about 10 nautical miles. This allowed groups of vol- [Link]/lmiu/ais/[Link]) and AIS Live
unteers and private companies to collect such data ([Link]
and make them available (either free of charge or
against payment). To the authors’ knowledge, the

Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art 21

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 21 11/26/10 11:43:18 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Figure 3. Ships’ positions in the Mediterranean Sea in the period 15-18 February 2010 retrieved
by the marinetraffi[Link] AIS network. Our elaborations.

Further to the definition of the ships’ activities, AIS in the clause established in the IMO 22nd
data may be usefully applied for the evaluation of meeting of the General Assembly, resolution
the vessels’ speed. The service speed provided by A.917(22);
the ships’ databases is an average value declared
by the ships’ operators. In order to calculate ships’ • Penetration of the AIS technology in the fleet
fuel consumption and emissions, the operational working in the area which is being consid-
speed of a ship would be required in addition to its ered. At the global level, approximately 50%
service speed (as detailed in Corbett et al., 2009). of ships have this system on board (Ou and
In particular, the relationship between fuel con- Zhu, 2008), but at the local scale the picture
sumption and the ratio between operating speed may be very different (for instance, according
and service speed is a cubic function (Corbett et al., to a recent study, MARIN, 2008, the coverage
2009), meaning that an estimation of the operating rises to 90% in the Baltic Sea, meaning that
speed can be used to calculate an estimate of the in other areas the percentage of coverage will
fuel consumption and emissions. AIS data could be much lower).
therefore substantially improve the global estima-
tion of emissions from maritime traffic. • Incomplete coverage for the entire route. For
instance, the data available for the entire
However, some risks exist with AIS data. These are route may potentially only be connected with
mainly connected to: the departure and the arrival of the vessel. It
is possible to have an estimate of the average
• Incomplete spatial coverage of maritime traf- cruise speed, but this is of course only an ap-
fic. In Figure 2 this is pointed out. In addition, proximation. This problem can be overcome
exceptions to the use of AIS data are given by using another data source, the Long Range

22 Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 22 11/26/10 11:43:22 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Identification and Tracking (LRIT) of ships. AMVER and ICOADS data may be also used for the
Although the LRIT contains less frequent in- definition of an international waterway network, as
formation (collected only four times per day) in Wang et al. (2008).
it is available everywhere. It was established
as an international system in 2006 by the IMO An alternative way of drawing inferences about
and applies to ships engaged on international maritime traffic activities and their spatial dis-
voyages (in particular to all passenger ships, tribution is to use the information on the origin/
cargo ships of 300 GT and above, and mobile destination of freight and people carried by ships.
offshore drilling units). Information of this type is available from different
sources. In the U.S. such information is collected
All these problems could be reduced if a single en- and published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
tity were to take responsibility for accurate data which creates the Import Waterborne Data Bank on
collection and distribution. In Europe this role will an annual basis (Wang et al., 2010).
be filled by the European Maritime Safety Agency
(EMSA), which will take care of both AIS and LRIT In Europe, traffic data are collected by the Europe-
data. This would lead to a considerable improve- an Commission’s EUROSTAT ([Link]
ment in the data accuracy for European researchers [Link]), which asks each Member State to
in the maritime transport field. provide a summary of its annual transport activi-
ties. Data for each transport sector are freely avail-
A satellite system which can collect AIS informa- able from [Link]
tion sent by ships is currently being developed. page/portal/transport/data/database.
This would facilitate the procurement of AIS data
no matter the distance of the vessel from the shore. Additionally, information on traffic and emissions
This would of course considerably improve the use- can be found as an output of funded research
fulness of the AIS system. In any case, both LRF and projects. As an example, the EX-TREMIS project
LMIU claim that they can provide such data. ([Link] allows free access to
the methodology adopted for the evaluation of
Further sources of data on vessel activities which emissions at a European level as well as to the out-
can be used for the spatial characterisation of emis- puts obtained.
sions are the ICOADS and AMVER datasets. ICOADS
(International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere A potential source of information for detailed ship
Data Set) contains ship positions voluntarily re- activities in restricted areas may be the use of ge-
corded by ships. In 2003 about 4,000 ships report- ostationary satellite observations. Geostationary
ed their data to ICOADS (around 5% of the world’s satellites offer the possibility of continuously moni-
fleet). Historical information goes back to 1662 and toring a certain area on Earth. They would therefore
therefore can be used to analyse the evolution of be very useful for the evaluation of ship activities
routes and navigation. Data are available through around main ports. Schreier et al. (2010) used data
subscription to the ICOADS website. from Meteosat-8 to analyse shipping routes around
the west coast of Southern Africa. This represents
AMVER (Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Res- a new and more sophisticated application, but at
cue System) is used worldwide by search and res- the moment seems less suitable for an extensive
cue authorities to provide assistance to ships and application.
persons in distress at sea. In 2004 about 9,000
ships reported to AMVER. Data, however, are not 2.1.3. Further information: emission factors
as easily accessible as they are from ICOADS.
Emission factors are another important type of
To improve the geographical characterisation of information for the estimation of emissions from
emissions, Wang et al. (2008) used both AMVER ships.
and ICOADS datasets to create spatial proxies of
traffic activities. AMVER, ICOADS and a combina- Indeed, usually, the first step in the evaluation of
tion of the two are available at [Link] emissions is the estimation of the fuel consumed
[Link]/GlobalShipEmissions/ as are the esti- by each ship (or fleet) on the basis of its activities.
mates of world’s emissions from maritime trans- Specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC, measured
port provided by the authors. in g/kWh) is therefore an important input to the

Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art 23

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 23 11/26/10 11:43:23 AM

 JRC Reference Report

appraisal. In IMO (2009) a possible estimation of Finally, the global fuel sales statistics are usually
SFOC is provided together with a discussion of the used to drive the estimation of the global impact of
sources (Appendix 1, page 185). For auxiliary en- maritime traffic on air emissions. The International
gines, a possible source of SFOC can be found in Energy Agency (IEA) and the Energy Information
Oonk et al. (2003). Administration (EIA) provide such data (see IMO,
2009). However, the reliability of the figures pro-
Once the fuel consumed has been calculated, it is vided has recently been put into question. For this
possible to use emission factors to estimate the reason it is not currently recommended that they
emission of different pollutants. In IMO (2009) emis- be used.
sion factors have been derived from IPCC (2006) for
CH4, N2O, CO2 and from EMEP CORINAIR (Thomas et
al., 2002) for CO, NMVOC, CH4, N2O, SO2, PM10. For 2.2. Concluding remarks
NOx emissions they followed the IMO regulation. It
also provides information on other pollutants such The evaluation of the total amount of emissions
as refrigerants (HFCs, CFCs, HFC-22, R717), VOCs deriving from current and future shipping activities
and PFCs. plays a central role in appraising possible strate-
gies for the sustainability of the maritime trans-
Other sources of emission factors are Cooper port sector. The analysis carried out in this chapter
(2003), Dalsoren et al. (2008) for black and organic highlights the limitations of the current methodolo-
carbon, Corbett et al. (2009) and IPCC (2006) for a gies as well as the scarcity and limited availability
discussion on the CO2 emission factor. of data concerning maritime transport activities.
These limitations make the design and assessment
In addition, for maritime traffic analysis it is very of air emission reduction strategies a complex task
important to know the geographic location of main for this sector. A precondition for an effective policy
ports (to be directly imported in a GIS environment) strategy to regulate air emissions is that they be
and the distance by sea between them. estimated in terms of quantification and localisa-
tion. The analysis highlights the fact that the scien-
Port characteristics datasets may be found at the tific debate is still open on the subject of estimating
sources suggested by Wang et al. (2007a). Unfor- the air emissions from maritime transport.
tunately, these datasets are no longer available on-
line. A good source can found in shape file format A conclusion of this section is that there is at
(.shp) on [Link] present no optimum source of information, in
download which contains World Port Index data. terms of accuracy, coverage and comprehensive-
ness. However, and this is key, different data
For a more macroscopic analysis, information on sources may be used together in order to reduce
distance along maritime routes can be found on their overall uncertainties. This consideration has
several websites (see for example [Link] received limited attention in the literature, due to
net/[Link] or the sea rates website [Link] the difficulties associated with accessing different
[Link]/reference/portdistance/). However, types of data. Finally, potential new sources of in-
these on-line tools give the port-to-port distance formation, as a result of the introduction of innova-
between two specific ports and therefore they are tive technologies, are expected to provide benefits
practically of no use when the distances between to the sector in the near future.
thousands of ports are required. A more useful
system is the NetPas tool ([Link]
net/), which allows multiple queries (unfortunate-
ly there is a limit of five queries per day in the free
trial version).

24 Evaluating emissions from the maritime transport sector: state of the art

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 24 11/26/10 11:43:24 AM

 JRC Reference Report

3. Reducing air emissions from ships: technological and

policy options

The analysis carried out in the previous chapters flexibility in the means of achieving goals. Regula-
shows the complexity of the current contribution of tory instruments (standards, permits, zoning, use
the maritime transport sector to global and local air restrictions, etc.) are policy instruments that gov-
emissions. The increasing environmental impacts ernments use to change the behavior of different
of the sector call for the design of sector-based individuals by issuing acts, rules and directives.
policy strategies to abate global and local air emis- These are often, but not always, supported by
sions. This task requires the combination of several the threat of sanction. Harmful environmental im-
policy options. pacts are largely controlled through environmental
legislation prohibiting the use of certain harmful
Which policy option is the most suitable depends substances, setting limits on emissions, enforc-
on the particular circumstances such as the exter- ing certain technical standards, making produc-
nal costs under consideration and the social ac- ers responsible for their products such as waste,
ceptability of the option in question. With regard limiting certain activities in special areas such as
to the external costs, in general terms the placing nature reserves or car-free areas in cities, and con-
of monetary values on the externalities associated trolling land use planning (Maler, K.,G., Vincent, J.,
with transport, although not a necessary condi- R., 2003).
tion, has a number of distinct benefits for policy
formulation. Economic instruments attempt to encourage indi-
vidual behavior through market signals rather than
The variety of policy instruments for reducing envi- through explicit directives regarding pollution con-
ronmental impacts are usually classified into a set trol methods. Their main characteristic is, in sim-
of broad classes, the most important of which are ple terms, their ability to address the externalities
‘command and control’ instruments and ‘economic (market failure) by providing a realistic evaluation
incentive based’ instruments. of environmental services (Turner, K., R., Pearce,
D., Bateman, I., 1993). Nevertheless, the policy di-
Conventional approaches to regulating the environ- lemma on how to select the most appropriate op-
ment are often referred to as “command and con- tion for the chosen objective can be supported by
trol” regulations, since they allow relatively little some selection criteria as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Criteria for selection of pollution control instruments. Source: Perman (2003: 203).

Criterion Brief description

Cost- effectiveness Does the instrument attain the target at least cost?
Does the influence of the instrument strengthen,
Long run effects
weaken or remain constant over time?
Does the instrument create continual incentives to improve
Dynamic efficiency
products or production processes in pollution reducing ways?
Ancillary benefits Does the use of the instrument allow a ‘double dividend’ to be achieved?
What implications does the use of an instrument have
Equity
for the distribution of income or wealth?
Dependability To what extent can the instrument be relied upon to achieve the target?
Is the instrument capable of being adapted quickly and cheaply as new
Flexibility
information arises, as condition change, or as targets are altered?
How large are the efficiency losses when the instrument
Cost if user under uncertainty
is used with incorrect information?
How much information does the instrument require that the control
Information requirements
authority posses, and what are the costs of acquiring it?

Reducing air emissions from ships: technological and policy options 25

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 25 11/26/10 11:43:26 AM

 JRC Reference Report

The focus of this Report is on the cost effectiveness the direct expenditure involved in the implementa-
analysis whose basic criterion is the selection of tion of the abatement option (Davidson, Van Essen,
the option which achieves a specified objective at 2009). The direct expenditures include: capital
the least cost. Typically, cost effectiveness analysis costs (the sum total of one-off costs associated
involves calculating a cost effectiveness ratio us- with the implementation of the abatement option
ing the least-cost method, which holds the output (Ibidem); operating costs (the costs of making the
constant and seeks the cheapest way to achieve it. option or the technology operational); regulatory
Within a cost effectiveness analysis the impacts of costs (the costs of policy estimation, implementa-
different technical alternatives can be determined, tion and enforcement). A comprehensive approach
but a comprehensive weighting is not undertaken. should include: (i) the welfare effects of the overall
This method of analysis offers a ranking of regula- costs of an option, such as the reduction of air pol-
tory options based on a “cost per unit of effective- lutants, as ancillary benefits of an option to abate
ness” of each measure. The cost per unit of out- CO2 emissions; (ii) the indirect effects due to the
come achieved is usually the decisive criterion and distortion arising in associated markets (labour or
it is only helpful if the benefit can be measured in capital markets); (iii) the transaction and informa-
one single physical unit (such as, for instance, 8% tion costs.
reduction in CO2).
The current policy actions available to abate air
The literature distinguishes three different per- emissions and GHGs from maritime transport
spectives from which to consider the costs: the end mainly concern the quality of fuel used and the
users, society (as a whole) and government. The technological options available. Market-based in-
perspective of end users (this category includes struments such as emissions trading are under dis-
companies, institutions, households) takes into ac- cussion at international level within the IMO. Fur-
count the costs directly related to the different op- thermore, the inclusion of the maritime transport
tions and distributed over the various actors. sector within the EU Emission Trading Scheme is on
the EU strategy to address GHGs.
A ‘society as a whole’ perspective considers the
external benefits and implementation costs related The following chapters give a detailed descrip-
to a policy. The cost-effectiveness analysis for cli- tion of the technological options, their potential
mate change abatement options usually opts for and their costs in abating air emissions from ships
the social perspective. The last perspective, the (Chapter 5), the international regulatory system
government one, takes into account the costs of im- in which regional and international environmental
plementation or government subsidies. However, policy strategies are integrated, and the current in-
all these perspectives have in common the central ternational debate on such strategies (Chapter 6).
element of the cost effectiveness analysis, which is

26 Reducing air emissions from ships: technological and policy options

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 26 11/26/10 11:43:27 AM

 JRC Reference Report

4. Abatement technologies: estimated performance

and costs

The maritime transport sector has a higher inertia The tables below (Tables 5 to 8) list the main tech-
to possible change compared to other sectors. How- nologies that could be used to reduce fuel con-
ever, an increased awareness of the environmental sumption and pollutant emissions from ships. The
impacts of the sector may represent the catalyst different technologies are grouped into five catego-
that leads shipping to move towards increased ef- ries depending on the specific sector in which they
ficiency. In addition, the current period of economic are used. These categories are (Wartsila, 2009):
uncertainty has led to a reduction in the profits of (i) Ship design; (ii) Propulsion; (iii) Machinery; (iv)
the ship companies’ owners. The main driver of this Operation; and (v) Fuel. All the related possible
phenomenon has been the unpredictable increase strategies are included in each category. The main
in fuel costs. In fact, the dependency on fossil fuels findings reported in IMO (2009) are provided for the
makes the maritime sector fragile. This is why new estimation of the cost efficiency and the global CO2
strategies and technologies to reduce ships’ fuel abatement potential of each option. The expected
consumption are now attracting the interest of the CO2 abatement potential of options which are not
entire maritime community, as they attempt to rec- estimated in the IMO report are taken from the
oncile the environmental and economic objectives Wartsila on-line catalogue4 (2009) for the specific
related to fuel consumption. New technologies ship on which they are applied. All the estimates
are now available, ready to use, and with proven consider 2020 as a base year, a bunker fuel price of
results. These include air cavity systems, wind US$ 500/tonne and a 4% interest rate.
power, fuel additives, twin propellers, new propel-
ler blades, recovering the waste gas heat and so
on. All of these, together with the use of alternative
“greener” fuels, can help reduce emissions of NOx
by up to 80%, PM by up to 90%, SOx by up to 90%
and CO2 by up to 70% (IMO, 2009). The estimation
of the costs of such technologies is fundamental to
assessing the feasibility of their application in the
sector. However, this task is complex due to the re-
quired additional information is. In general terms,
the costs related to abatement technologies can be
divided into capital (or investment) and operating
costs. The capital costs include the construction,
the manpower, the license fees, the delivery of the
installation and all the expenditures accumulated
in preparing the start-up of the installation. The
operating costs relate to the annual expenditures.
These include fixed expenditures such as the costs
of maintenance and administration, and variable
costs such as additional labour or increased energy
requirements for operating the device. The average
annual costs are calculated taking into account the
investment costs, the fixed and variable operating
costs and the normal technical lifetime of the in-
stallation. The unitary costs are calculated by relat-
ing the annual costs to the emissions abated. The
cost effectiveness is calculated by dividing the an-
nual cost of any measure by the annual emissions
reduction attributable to that measure. Moreover, 4 [Link] It is worth mentioning that this
the costs related to abatement technologies vary company is a global leader in complete lifecycle power
depending on whether the vessel is new or retrofit. solutions for the marine and energy markets.

Abatement technologies: estimated performance and costs 27

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 27 11/26/10 11:43:28 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Table 5. Cost efficiency and abatement potential for ship design related options

Cost efficiency Maximum CO2

(US$/tonne of CO2) abatement potential
Ship Design
Low cost High cost % of total
estimate estimate in Mt emissions
Efficiency of scale Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 4*
Reduce ballast Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 7*
Lightweight construction Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 7*
Optimum main dimension Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 9*
Interceptor trip planes Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 4*
Ducktail waterline extensions Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 7*
Lower potential -145 -140 10.7 0.90
Transverse thrusters openings
Higher potential -160 -160 53.1 4.20
Lower potential -115 -90 7.5 0.90
Air cavity systems
Higher potential -150 -140 24.4 1.90
Machinery concept Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 30*
Source: Our estimations based on IMO (2009), Annex IV, pp. 265-286; *Wartsila (2009) refers to the abatement potential on a
single ship on which the system is installed and not on the global emissions. The latter is reported by IMO (2009).

Table 6. Cost efficiency and abatement potential for propulsion related options

Cost efficiency Maximum CO2

(US$/tonne of CO2) abatement potential
Propulsion
Low cost High cost % of total
estimate estimate in Mt emissions
Wing thrusters Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 8*
CRP propulsion Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 10*

Propeller performance Lower potential -135 -130 5.4 0.40

monitoring Higher potential -160 -160 42.5 3.40
Lower potential 90 120 19.7 1.60
Propeller/rudder upgrade
Higher potential -80 -70 58.5 4.70

Propeller upgrade Lower potential 530 600 1.3 0.10

(winglet/nozzle) Higher potential -90 -80 11.2 0.90
Lower potential -155 -150 42.9 3.40
Propeller boss cap fins
Higher potential -155 -155 53.1 4.20
Variable speed operation Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 5*
Lower potential -85 -75 37.1 3.00
Towing kyte
Higher potential -135 -130 100.9 8.00
Pulling thruster Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 10*
Seawater lubricated stern
Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 2*
Tube Bearing System
Source: Our estimations based on IMO Annex IV, pp. 265-286; *Wartsila (2009) refers to the abatement potential on a single ship
on which the system is installed and not on the global emissions. The latter is reported by IMO (2009).

28 Abatement technologies: estimated performance and costs

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 28 11/26/10 11:43:29 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Table 7. Cost efficiency and abatement potential for machinery related options

Cost efficiency Maximum CO2

(US$/tonne of CO2) abatement potential
Machinery
Low cost High cost % of total
estimate estimate in Mt emissions
Shore-Side Electricity Max potential* 20**
Diesel electric machinery Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 20*
Water Injection Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 2*
Selective catalytic reduction Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Waste heat recovery Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 10*
Lower potential 405 470 1 0.10
Main engine tuning
Higher potential -90 -85 7.8 0.60
Lower potential 25 45 1.1 0.10
Common rail upgrade
Higher potential -125 -120 5.3 0.40
Lower potential 70 115 5.4 0.40
Shaft power meter
Higher potential -105 -95 21.3 1.70
Lower potential 245 330 5.4 0.40
Fuel consumption meter
Higher potential -60 -40 21.3 1.70

Low energy/Low- Lower potential 385 440 0.1 0.00

heat lighting Higher potential -95 -85 0.6 0.00
Lower potential 100 130 0.1 0.00
Power management
Higher potential -130 -125 0.7 0.10

Speed control Lower potential 210 250 2.1 0.20

pumps and fans Higher potential -90 -80 10.6 0.80
Solar Power Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 4*
Source: Our estimations based on IMO (2009), Annex IV, pp. 265-286; *Wartsila (2009) refers to the abatement potential on a sin-
gle ship on which the system is installed and not on the global emissions. The latter is reported by IMO (2009); ** This percent-
age refers to the CO2 abated in the production of electrical energy while the ship is in port (the estimate varies by country).

Abatement technologies: estimated performance and costs 29

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 29 11/26/10 11:43:31 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Table 8. Cost efficiency and abatement potential for operation related options

Cost efficiency Maximum CO2

(US$/tonne of CO2) abatement potential
Operation
Low cost High cost % of total
estimate estimate in Mt emissions
Turnaround time in port Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 10*
Lower potential -75 -65 25.4 2.00
Propeller brushing
Higher potential -125 -120 62.8 5.00

Increased frequency Lower potential -160 -130 6.2 0.50

of propeller brushing Higher potential -160 -160 36.7 2.90
Lower potential -115 -105 6.6 0.50
Hull coating type 1
Higher potential -150 -150 26.1 2.10
Lower potential -40 -15 13.2 1.10
Hull coating type 1
Higher potential -140 -130 65.3 5.20
Lower potential -95 -65 12.7 1.00
Hull brushing
Higher potential -155 -150 125.6 10.00

Underwater Lower potential -80 -35 12.7 1.00

hydroblasting Higher potential -155 -150 125.6 10.00
Lower potential -155 -150 8.2 0.60
Dry-dock full blast
Higher potential -160 -160 16.1 1.30

Hull performance Lower potential -45 -45 6.2 0.50

monitoring Higher potential -150 -150 61.2 4.90
Lower potential -130 -100 1.2 0.10
Weather routeing
Higher potential -165 -160 46 3.70
10% speed reduction The entire fleet 80 135 98.7 7.90
Vessel trim Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. 5*

Autopilot upgrade/ Lower potential -140 -140 5.4 0.40

adjustment Higher potential -160 -160 31.9 2.50
Energy saving
Max potential* n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
operation awareness
Source: Our estimations based on IMO (2009), Annex IV, pp. 265-286; *Wartsila (2009) refers to the abatement potential on a
single ship on which the system is installed and not on the global emissions. The latter is reported by IMO (2009).

A comprehensive and detailed description of the With regard to the fuel category, marine fuels are
different technologies is provided in Annex A. For generally classified as fuel oil or distillate. Fuel
each technology/strategy, information is given of oil refers to residual fuel oil manufactured at the
the types of ship to which it can be applied (fol- “bottom end” of an oil refining process. The most
lowing a rough classification of Tankers, Contain- commonly used term for this kind of fuel is heavy
ers, Ro-Ro, Ferries and Off-Shore Support Ves- fuel oil (HFO). It is the heaviest of the marine fu-
sels), the possibility for existing ships to adopt els and contains significant amounts of sulphur.
it, an indication of the amount of time required to Its average sulphur content is 2.7% mass, which
recover the starting investment (i.e. the payback is 90% higher than conventional diesel or petrol
time) and an estimate of the potential fuel/emis- (Butt, 2007). However, for economic reasons, it is
sion reduction rate. the most widely used (Endresen et al., 2003).

30 Abatement technologies: estimated performance and costs

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 30 11/26/10 11:43:32 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Figure 4 shows that marine fuel has high sulphur content. Distillate fuel can be divided into marine gas oil
(MGO) and marine diesel oil (MDO). MGO is a light distillate fuel containing light aromatic hydrocarbons and
no residual components. MDO can contain residual fuel oil and is a heavier distillate (Wilde et al., 2007).

Road Diesel Oil Limit 10

Marine Fuel Oil 2015 limit in ECA 1,000

(established)
Maximum content for heating oil 1,000
in land-based sources
Marine Fuel Oil 2020 limit
5,000
(proposed)
Maximum content for HFO
10,000
in land-based sources

ECA limit 10,000

Marine Fuel Oil (global average) 27,000

Marine Fuel Oil 2012 limit (proposed) 35,000

IMO limit 45,000

ECA: Emission Controlled Areas

0

00

00

00

00

pp 0
m
HFO: Heavy Fue Oil 0
,0

,0

,0

,0

,0
10

20

30

40

50

Figure 4. Sulphur content of fuels – Our elaboration on data from EEB (2008)

Since sulphur emissions are proportional to the sul- (v) Water emulsified fuel . The water in fuel is be-
phur content in the fuel, the easiest way to reduce lieved to reduce the combustion temperature
SOx emissions is to use fuel with lower sulphur con- which reduces the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pro-
tent. Three alternatives are available: duction and alters combustion to inhibit soot,
hydrocarbons and PM formation (Armas et
(i) Low-sulphur fuels, which contains less than al., 2005).
10,000 parts per million (ppm) of sulphur,
1.0% (or even 5,000 in some cases); In Wang et al. (2007b) a cost-effectiveness analysis
was carried out to assess the effect of introducing
(ii) Ultra-low sulphur fuels, which contains less different SO2 control strategies on U.S. commercial
than 300 ppm sulphur, 0.03%; fleet travelling in the European SOx Emission
Control Areas (SECA), i.e. the North and Baltic
(iii) Alternative fuels (biofuels, natural gas and Seas, and in the hypothetical U.S. West Coast Sea.
hydrogen); Three strategies were considered: i) the use of a
prescriptive standard for the use of low-sulphur
(iv) Distillate fuel. Distilling fuel reduces its SOx fuel (considered to have 1.5% sulphur content), ii)
by 80% and its PM by 35%. It is estimated the application of a performance-based strategy
that the cost of introducing distillates in the (using scrubbers) and iii) the application of a
market is US$ 250x109 and the time required market-based strategy.
is about 20 years. Distillate fuels, however,
usually lead to an increase in CO2 emissions
(up to 20%);

Abatement technologies: estimated performance and costs 31

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 31 11/26/10 11:43:34 AM

 JRC Reference Report

In order to account for uncertainties in the evalu- storage and handling systems on board (Schmid
ations of the three strategies, seven scenarios and Weisser, 2005).
were defined. Considering abatement potential,
the most convenient strategy appeared to be the In Bosh et al. (2009) another study on this topic was
market-based one (cost-effectiveness in the range carried out. Results are reported in Table 9 in terms
US$ 1,200-1,500/tonne SO2 abated) in comparison of estimated costs of fuel shift per fuel tonne or
with the performance-based (US$ 1,200-2,900/ per energy produced in 2020 (using as a reference
tonne SO2 abated) and the prescriptive strategies a cost of US$420/tonne of fuel with 2.94% sulphur
(US$ 1,300-3,000/tonne SO2 abated). However, the content, as in Avis and Birch, 2009).
performance-based strategy was considered the
easiest to apply (e.g. emission targets were met In addition, it gives an estimation of the corre-
even when only one out of ten ships used scrub- sponding cost of SO2 abatement.
bers on board).

Indeed, the application of a prescriptive standard

of low-sulphur fuel requires that the vessels be re-
equipped with fuel storage and delivery systems
and that special controls be incorporated into dis-
tribution schemes. In addition, the different fuel oil
grades may require the use of different lubricat-
ing oil grades and technical modifications of fuels

Table 9. Cost for fuel shifting in 2020 both with respect to the tonnes of fuel and to the energy produced

Option (%S Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High Cost Low SO2 abat. High SO2 abat.
in fuel) ($/tonne) ($/tonne) (k€2005/PJ) (k€2005/PJ) (€/tonne) (€/tonne)

Fuel Shift
20 20 359 359 510 510
(2.941.5)
Fuel Shift
30 30 538 538 568 568
(2.941)
Fuel Shift
120 170 2,152 3,049 1,806 2,559
(2.940.5)
Fuel Shift
280 330 4,510 5,370 3,621 4,268
(2.940.1)
Fuel Shift
160 160 2,753 2,753 14,692 14,692
(0.50.1)
Source Bosch et al. (2009), Table 7.2, page 38

Table 10. Cost effectiveness of fuel switching for SOx reduction measures per €/tonne abated

Technologies Small Vessel (€/tonne) Medium Vessel (€/tonne) Large Vessel (€/tonne)

Fuel Shift: 2.7%1.5% 1,900 1,900 1,900

Fuel Shift: 2.7%0.5% 1,300 1,300 1,300
Source: data are in accordance with those reported in EMTEC (2005b), Rahai and Hefazi (2006), Lovblad and Fridell (2006) and
IIASA (2007). Note that 2.7% S fuel is the sulphur concentration in the fuel.

32 Abatement technologies: estimated performance and costs

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 32 11/26/10 11:43:35 AM

 JRC Reference Report

4.1. Energy Efficiency Design Index gas tankers, tankers, container ships, ro-ro cargo
ship vehicle carriers, ro-ro cargo ship volume carri-
A specific section is reserved for the Energy ers, ro-ro cargo ship weight carriers, general cargo
Efficiency Design Index for new ships (IMO, 2009c). ships and ro-ro passenger ships).

With its MEPC.1/Circ.683 Circular, the International The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) is
Maritime Organization (IMO) defined temporary defined as a measure of a ship’s CO2 efficiency
guidelines for the development of a ship’s energy and is calculated by means of a specific formula
efficiency management plan and the calculation of (IMO, 2009).
the Energy Efficiency Design Index for new ships.
The index allows for the definition of a threshold
The definition of a methodology derived from the (EEDIrequired) above which a new ship cannot be ap-
necessity to establish a reference measure of ener- proved, and provides an instrument which helps
gy efficiency for new ships which would be capable the ship’s manufacturer to calculate how and how
of stimulating innovation and technical develop- much the overall efficiency should be increased.
ment in this field.
The IMO Energy Efficiency Design Index is an ex-
The idea of establishing a mandatory design index ample of the international system which regulates
was proposed to the IMO for the first time by Den- maritime transport and of how the environment
mark at the 57 th session of the Marine Environment issue is integrated within this framework. Indeed,
Protection Committee (MEPC) in 2008. a legislative intervention to control air emissions
from international maritime transport must be in-
The definition of a single index for all categories of tegrated into a complex international regulatory
ships is not straightforward and therefore the meth- system that governs this sector5.
odology defined hitherto is only temporary, and
will need to be further refined. In its present form, The next chapter gives an overview of this system
the methodology takes ten vessel categories into and provides the main elements of its legal and po-
consideration (passenger ships, dry cargo carriers, litical structure.

5 For additional information see the paragraph 5.1

Abatement technologies: estimated performance and costs 33

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 33 11/26/10 11:43:36 AM

 JRC Reference Report

5. The international framework

for regulating air emissions from ships

The International Convention for the Prevention of The MARPOL 1973/1978 Convention represents the
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 1973/1978) repre- most relevant regulation on marine pollution.
sents the main IMO Convention currently in force re-
garding the protection of the marine environment. In 1997, air pollution was included in Annex VI,
setting limits on sulphur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen
The Convention’s principle articles deal mainly with oxide (NOx) emissions from ship exhausts and pro-
jurisdiction and powers of enforcement and inspec- hibiting deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting
tion. More detailed anti-pollution regulations are substances.
given in the annexes, which can be adopted or
amended by the Marine Environment Protection Annex VI was ratified by 60 contracting States with
Committee (MEPC) of the IMO with the acceptance 84.04% of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage9.
of a number of parties representing 50% of the GT It entered into force on 19 May 200510.
of the world’s merchant fleet6.
In 2008 Annex VI was amended (MEPC 58/23/
Six annexes of the Convention cover the various Add.1). The revised text, which establishes more
sources of pollution from ships and provide an stringent emission requirements for ships that op-
overarching framework for international objectives erate in designated coastal areas where air qual-
but, without ratification and implementation by ity problems are acute, entered into force on 1 July
sovereign states, they are not sufficient to protect 2010.
the marine environment from waste discharges7.
Amendments are normally adopted within MEPC’s
A State that becomes party to MARPOL must ac- sessions or by a Conference of the Parties to
cept Annexes I and II. Acceptance of Annexes III-VI MARPOL11. Annex VI amendments became effective
is voluntary. following the tacit acceptance procedure12, which is
defined by Article 16(2)(d) of the 1973 Convention.
All six have been ratified by the requisite number
of nations. The IMO emission standards are commonly referred
to as Tier I-III standards. The Tier I standards were
Each signatory nation is responsible for enacting defined in the 1997 version of Annex VI, while the
domestic laws to implement the Convention and ef- Tier II/III standards were introduced by the Annex
fectively pledges to comply with the Convention, its VI amendments adopted in 2008, as follows: 1997
annexes, and the related laws of other nations8. standards applied retroactively to new engines

9 Updates about the Status of the Convention are available

6 Annex I deals with regulations for the prevention of on [Link]
pollution by oil. Annex II details the discharge criteria and asp?topic_id=247
measures for the control of pollution by noxious liquid 10 The “1997 Protocol” to MARPOL, which includes Annex
substances carried in bulk. Annex III contains general VI, was going to become effective 12 months after being
requirements for issuing standards on packing, marking, accepted by 15 States with not less than 50% of world
labelling, and notifications for preventing pollution by merchant shipping tonnage. On 18 May 2004, Samoa
harmful substances. Annex IV contains requirements to deposited its ratification as the 15th State (joining
control pollution of the sea by sewage. Annex V deals with Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Denmark, Germany,
different types of garbage, including plastics, and specifies Greece, Liberia, Marshal Islands, Norway, Panama,
the distances from land and the manner in which they Singapore, Spain, Sweden and Vanuatu). On that date,
may be disposed of. Annex VI sets limits on sulphur oxide, Annex VI was ratified by States with 54.57% of world
nitrogen oxide, and other emissions from marine vessel merchant shipping tonnage. Accordingly, Annex VI entered
operations and prohibits deliberate emitting of ozone- into force on 19 May 2005.
depleting substances. 11 See [Link]
7 Annex I – Oil; Annex II - Noxious Liquid Substances carried id=678&topic_id=258.
in Bulk; Annex III - Harmful Substances carried in Packaged 12 The amendments entered into force six months after the
Form; Annex IV – Sewage; Annex V – Garbage; Annex VI - deemed acceptance date, 1 January 2010. This process
Air Pollution would have not been concluded if, within the acceptance
8 For further information on this topic see A.K. Tan, period, an objection had been communicated to the
Vessel-source Marine Pollution: The Law and Politics Organization by not less than one third of the Parties or
of International Regulation (Cambridge Studies In by the Parties the combined merchant fleets of which
International and Comparative Law), Cambridge University constitute not less than 50% of the GT of the world’s
Press, 2006, pp. 107-75. merchant fleet.

34 The international framework for regulating air emissions from ships

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 34 11/26/10 11:43:37 AM

 JRC Reference Report

greater than 130kW installed on vessels construct- January 202014 (in the meantime a feasibility review
ed on or after 1 January 2000, or which underwent should be finalised by 201815).
a major conversion after that date. This regulation
also applied to fixed and floating rigs and to drilling Since 1 July 2010 limits have been reduced to 1.0%
platforms13. Annex VI amendments adopted in Oc- in SECAs (from the current 1.5 %) and they will be
tober 2008 introduced: 1) new fuel quality require- further reduced to 0.1 %, effective from 1 January
ments starting from July 2010; 2) Tier II and III NOx 201516.
emission standards for new engines; 3) Tier I NOx
requirements for pre-2000 engines. The IMO also agreed on a progressive reduction in
NOx emissions from marine engines, defining the
Annex VI defines two sets of emission and fuel most stringent controls on Tier III marine diesel en-
quality requirements: 1) global requirements, and gines installed on ships constructed on or after 1
2) more stringent requirements applicable to ships January 2016, operating in ECAs17.
in Emission Control Areas (ECA).
It also has to be briefly mentioned that Regula-
An Emission Control Area can be designated for SOx tion 12 of Annex VI prohibits deliberate emissions
and PM, for NOx, or for all three types of emissions of ozone depleting substances, including halons
from ships, subject to a proposal from a Party to and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). New installations
Annex VI. containing ozone-depleting substances are prohib-
ited on all ships. But new installations containing
According to Regulation 12 of MEPC 58/22 “an Emis- hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are permitted
sion Control Area shall be any sea area, including any until 1 January 2020.
port area, designated by the Organization”, in which
stringent international emission standards will apply According to the 2008 amendments, as of 1 July
to ships. Existing Emission Control Areas include: 2010 vessels should also keep on board a list of
equipment containing ozone depleting substances
• The Baltic Sea (for SOx; adopted in 1997 and and a Record Book in which ozone depleting sub-
entered into force on 19 May 2006); stances resulting from certain operations are in-
stantly recorded, including, for example, the full or
• The North Sea, which also includes the Eng- partial recharging of equipment containing ozone
lish Channel (for SOx; adopted in 2005 and depleting substances18.
entered into force on 22 November 2007);

• The North American ECA, including most of

the US and Canadian coast (for NOx & SOx;
adopted in 2010 and to entered into force
in 2011).

The first two areas, designated for SOx only, are

commonly known as SECAs. The North American
ECA was approved by the IMO during the MPEC 60
14 MEPC 58/23/Add. 1 Annex 13, Regulation 14, paragraph 1.
(MEPC 60/22, Annex 11) on 26 March 2010 and will
15 MEPC 58/23/Add. 1 Annex 13, Regulation 14, paragraph 8.
enter into force on 1 August 2011. 16 MEPC 58/23/Add. 1 Annex 13, Regulation 14, paragraph 4.
17 MEPC 58/23/Add. 1 Annex 13, Regulation 14, paragraph 5.1.
The revised MARPOL Annex VI should guarantee a 18 According to MEPC 58/23/Add. 1 Annex 13, Regulation 12,
progressive reduction in SOx emissions from ships paragraph 7:“Entries in the Ozone Depleting Substances
on a global scale as well as within SECAs. The glo- Record Book shall be recorded in terms of mass (kg)
bal sulphur cap shall be initially reduced to 3.5% of substance and shall be completed without delay on
each occasion, in respect of the following: 1 recharge,
(from the current 4.5%), effective from 1 January full or partial, of equipment containing ozone depleting
2012, then progressively to 0.5%, effective from 1 substances; 2 repair or maintenance of equipment
containing ozone depleting substances; 3 discharge
of ozone depleting substances to the atmosphere: 3.1
deliberate; and 3.2 non-deliberate; 4 discharge of ozone
13 Except for emissions directly related to exploration and/or depleting substances to land-based reception facilities;
handling of sea-bed minerals. and 5 supply of ozone depleting substances to the ship.”

The international frameworkfor regulating air emissions from ships 35

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 35 11/26/10 11:43:39 AM

 JRC Reference Report

5.1. International mechanisms for dollars per year” (Buhaug et al., 2009). A second
reducing maritime transport way of combining both principles is to differentiate
emissions: the current debate commitments for Annex I and non-Annex I countries
without relying on the nationality of ships.
In order to fully deliver its mandate as stipulated
in Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC19, A solution could be to differentiate responsibili-
the MEPC also analysed the potential constraints of ties according to the route of the vessels or the ship
a new legally binding instrument addressing GHG size (Faber and Rensema, 2008). A justification for
emissions from international shipping 20. In par- differentiated responsibilities in maritime policy is
ticular, the Committee voiced concerns about the that the policy should not interfere with the growth
compatibility between the Kyoto Protocol’s “com- potential of developing countries.
mon but differentiated responsibilities” approach,
according to which legally binding emissions re- As some countries are dependent on maritime
duction commitments should apply only to Annex transport for their exports, and countries are
I Parties, and the Paris MoU’s “no more favorable thought to develop by periods of export-led
treatment” concept, according to which relevant le- economic growth, global coverage of the described
gal instruments (conventions) should apply also to policies could lead to lower economic growth
ships which fly the flag of a State which is not a Par- (Faber and Rensema, 2008). Kågeson (2008)
ty to that convention21. To ascertain whether there highlights that it may not be possible to achieve
is a potential conflict between two different inter- complete global coverage of an international
national treaties it has to be established whether maritime emission trading scheme, as support from
or not they somehow regulate the same subject in developing countries might be limited. He therefore
a contradictory way. envisages three possible stages of implementation:
Firstly the set-up of a scheme by the IMO and the
In the Copenhagen discussions the conflict UNFCCC that is open for voluntary participation
between these two principles was highlighted. by States and ports, and secondly, a scheme that
In a statement by the Executive Secretary of the covers all traffic in the ports of Annex I countries,
UNFCCC Secretariat, Mr. Yvo de Boer, a solution was which can finally be extended to a scheme covering
proposed: “[…] A global cap on bunker fuels would all maritime traffic on a global level.
be in line with the “equal treatment” principle of
the IMO”. Using the obtained revenues to assist The same could be applied on the basis of a tax or a
developing countries in addressing climate change levy system, although careful analysis of the effects
would be in line with the provisions of the United is needed as a major threat to the environmental ef-
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. fectiveness of these systems is carbon leakage due
The amounts that could be generated by maritime to incomplete coverage. For the voluntary sectoral
transport in reducing its carbon footprint are crediting option, this is not an issue.
substantial with estimates over four billion US
The debate is still open. However, within the evalu-
ation of the best possible IMO regulatory frame-
19 Art. 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC: “The Parties
work on GHG emissions from ships, in particular
included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction
of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by CO2, Parties already agreed on a list of principles22
the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker to be adhered to:
fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation
Organization and the International Maritime Organization, 1. Effective contribution to the reduction of total
respectively”.
GHGs;
20 This discussion has been pushed forward by the
publication of the “Second IMO GHG Study 2009” (update
of the 2000 IMO GHG Study) which has been prepared on 2. Binding and equally applicable to all Flag
behalf of the IMO by an international consortium led by States in order to avoid evasion;
MARTINEK. This study set out a comprehensive overview
of policy options for the reduction of emissions, including 3. Cost-effectiveness;
a Maritime Emissions Trading Scheme, seen as “cost-
effective policy instruments with high environmental
effectiveness”.
21 [Link]
31st%20%20Amendment%20editorial%[Link] 22 MEPC 57/WP.8

36 The international frameworkfor regulating air emissions from ships

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 36 11/26/10 11:43:40 AM

 JRC Reference Report

4. Limitation, or at least, effective minimisation reached. However, progress on this is expected to

of competitive distortion; be made in the Committee’s next session.

5. Sustainable environmental development One of the reasons for which this option was not
without penalising global trade and growth; unanimously approved is that, according to some
of the Parties, this solution might not cover all the
6. Goal-based approach and not a prescriptive aspects required for a future IMO GHG regulatory
specific method; framework.

7. Supportive of promoting and facilitating tech- To address GHG emissions from ships, Market-
nical innovation and R&D in the entire ship- Based Measures (MBM) are also currently under
ping sector; discussion within the IMO. The discussion centres
on several options.
8. Accommodating to leading technologies in
the field of energy efficiency; At the MEPC60 it has been established an Expert
Group to evaluate the several proposals of possi-
9. Practical, transparent, fraud-free and easy to ble MBM presented to the Committee. The Expert
administer Group has analysed ten proposals: 1) An Interna-
tional Fund for GHG from ships (GHG Fund) pro-
The MEPC has been invited by the Parties to take posed by Cyprus, Denmark, the Marshall Islands,
concrete action and to deliver its mandate, as Nigeria and IPTA; 2) Leveraged Incentive Scheme
stipulated in Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol, by (LIS) to improve the energy efficiency of ships based
preparing a legal framework to be adopted in the on the international GHG fund proposed by Japan;
immediate future. However, the absence of new le- 3) Achieving reduction in GHG from ships through
gally binding commitments as a result of COP15 has Port State arrangements utilizing the ship traffic,
prolonged the abovementioned discussion until energy and environment model, STEEM proposal
MEPC 60 and 61. Even though important steps for- by Jamaica; 4) the United States proposal to reduce
ward have been made by the Parties for the adop- GHG emissions from shipping, the Ship Efficiency
tion of a final text amending Annex VI, the process and Credit Trading (SECT); 5) the Vessel Efficiency
is still pending. System (VES) proposal by World Shipping Council;
6) the Global emission trading System (ETS) for in-
At present, the option which meets with most Par- ternational shipping proposal by Norway; 7) Global
ties’ approval is the establishment, within Annex Emission Trading System (ETS) for international
VI, of a mandatory Energy Efficiency Design Index shipping proposal by the United Kingdom; 8) fur-
(EEDI). Within MEPC 58 and 59, Parties adopted a ther elements for the development of an Emission
list of guidelines for calculation and trial purposes Trading System (ETS) for international Shipping
and agreed on the fact that EEDI should be com- proposal by France; 9) Market-Based Instruments:
prised of the following three components for better a penalty on trade and development proposal by
enforcement and compliance: (i) requirements (the Bahamas; 10) A rebate Mechanism for A market
EEDI should be calculated for each new ship follow- Based instruments for international shipping pro-
ing IMO guidelines), (ii) verification and certification posal by IUCN (IMO, 2010).
(ships should be subject to surveys for verification
of their compliance with the EEDI’s requirements), Each proposal has been assessed considering nine
and (iii) State Port control (ships may be subject to criteria: (i) environmental effectiveness; (ii) the
inspection by the Authority of the Parties when en- cost effectiveness of the proposed MBM and im-
tering their ports or offshore terminals). pacts on trade and sustainable development; (iii)
potential impacts on innovation and technologi-
However, no amendment has so far been approved cal change; (iv) practical feasibility of implement-
and the EEDI can currently only be adopted on a vol- ing the proposed MBM; (v) the need of technology
untary basis. During the latest MEPC 61, Parties de- transfer to, and capacity building within , develop-
bated about whether to get the Secretary-General ing countries; (vi) the MBM proposal’s relation with
to circulate proposed amendments to MARPOL An- other relevant conventions; (vii) potential addition-
nex VI in order to make the EEDI mandatory, but no al burdens, and the legal aspects for the national
consensus about how to proceed on this issue was Administrations by implementing the proposed

The international frameworkfor regulating air emissions from ships 37

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 37 11/26/10 11:43:41 AM

 JRC Reference Report

MBM; (viii) the potential additional workload, eco- In conclusion, although the sector has a significant
nomic burden , and operational impact for individ- abatement potential, meaning that environmental
ual ships, the shipping industry and the maritime gains can be realised, there are some challenges
sector; (ix) the MBM’s compatibility with the exist- that need to be overcome in order to make such a
ing enforcement and control provisions under the policy successful. These challenges include decid-
IMO legal framework (IMO, 2010). The results of ing on a method to allocate ship emissions to coun-
this analysis was discussed during the last MEPC tries, diminishing the risk of carbon leakage, and
61 and the Committee set out the Terms of Refer- designing a policy that is administratively and po-
ence for an inter-session Meeting of the Working litically feasible with respect to allowance distribu-
Group on GHG Emissions from Ships, to be held in tion and treatment of the great variety in ship type,
March 2011. The outcomes of the meeting will be size and usage. A global policy could overcome
presented and discussed at the next MEPC 62 in most of the above-mentioned challenges.
July 2011.

38 The international frameworkfor regulating air emissions from ships

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 38 11/26/10 11:43:42 AM

 JRC Reference Report

6. The EU policy on air and GHG emissions

from international shipping

An EU strategy to reduce and regulate atmospheric In this document the Commission set out concrete
emissions from ships was available in November proposals on how to achieve successful results
2002, covering emissions leading to both air pol- within international climate change negotiations in
lution and climate change23. However, only the Copenhagen and beyond.
strategy related to air pollution from ships became
a concrete action with, for example, a directive In particular, this Communication identified three
regulating the sulphur content of marine fuel which core challenges, namely targets and actions, financ-
came into force in August 200524. ing, and the building of an effective global carbon
market. Within the definition of new commitments
Indeed, European Union legislation establishes a and practical solutions for achieving them, the Com-
set of rules which aim to reduce sulphur oxide emis- mission stated that “to have a reasonable chance of
sions from maritime transport. In particular, Direc- staying below the 2°C threshold, global GHG emis-
tive 1999/32/EC25, which relates to a reduction in sions must be reduced to less than 50% of 1990
the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels, has set levels by 2050…Developed countries must lead in
the first sulphur limits for marine distillate oil used meeting this global goal and demonstrate that a
in EU territorial waters. low-carbon economy is possible and affordable”.

This Directive extended the scope of the previous Concerning emissions from international aviation
Directive 93/12/EEC on the reduction of sulphur and maritime transport, the Commission expected
dioxide emissions to cover certain liquid fuels de- a global settlement to be agreed in Copenhagen
rived from petroleum and used by seagoing ships. for reducing the climate impact of these sectors
Recently, Directive 2005/33/EC26 extended the below 2005 levels by 2020 and below 1990 levels
scope of Directive 1999/32/EC to all petroleum- by 2050.
derived liquid fuels used by ships operating within
Member States’ waters. Market-based measures, including emissions trad-
ing, are seen as a possible solution that could en-
It provides for innovative measures such as the ab- sure emission reduction.
olition of existing derogations for marine gas oils,
the enforcement of a 1.5% limit on sulphur content The Commission stressed that both the Interna-
in Emission Control Areas as defined by the Inter- tional Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the
national Maritime Organization, the application of International Maritime Organization (IMO) have the
the same limit to all passenger ships operating on responsibility to conclude the process by the end
scheduled services to or from any Community port, of 2010. The Commission agreed on the fact that, if
the requirement for all ships at berth in Community no agreement is reached between the ICAO and the
ports to use a fuel with a sulphur content not ex- IMO after this deadline, “emissions from interna-
ceeding 0.1%, and the permission to use approved tional aviation and maritime transport will be count-
emission abatement technologies as an alternative ed towards national totals under the Copenhagen
to using low-sulphur marine fuels. agreement which will ensure comparable action by
all developed countries.” The EU has included CO2
With regard to GHG emissions, the European Com- emissions from aviation within the EU ETS28.
mission Communication towards Copenhagen
COP1527 sets out the core legislative actions which Regarding maritime transport, the Commission as-
have been taken on a European scale in order to ad- serted: “several market-based measures are cur-
dress emissions from maritime transport. rently being examined. If no effective global rules
to reduce GHG emissions from this sector can be
agreed upon, the EU should agree its own meas-
23 [Link]
ures.” (COM(2009) 39 final).
24 EU (2005) Directive 2005/33/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council.
25 OJ L 121, 11.5.1999 The above-mentioned communication was pub-
26 OJ L 191, 22.7.2005 lished on 28 January 2009 following the approval
27 COM(2009) 39 final, Brussels, 28.1.2009, Communication of the EU Climate Change package, which was
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions. Towards a comprehensive 28 Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of
climate change agreement in Copenhagen. the Council of 23 April 2009, No L 140.

The EU policy on air and GHG emissions from international shipping 39

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 39 11/26/10 11:43:43 AM

 JRC Reference Report

adopted by the European Parliament in December With regard to the inclusion of maritime transport
2008. This package has been designed to achieve in the EU ETS, in order for the maritime transport
the EU’s overall environmental target of a 20% re- sector to become more environmentally friendly,
duction in greenhouse gases and a 20% share of the flexible nature of the EU ETS provides a defi-
renewable energy in the EU’s total energy con- nite window of opportunity, without placing an un-
sumption by 202029. necessarily heavy burden on the sector (as can be
expected from traditional command-and-control
Regarding the EU’s 20% unilateral commitment it measures).33
should be mentioned that, in December 2008, the
European Council expressed its intention to in- Reducing GHG emissions from the maritime trans-
crease this target to 30% within the framework of a port sector by means of inclusion in the EU ETS is
global agreement to be reached in Copenhagen30. interesting mainly because of the opportunities
that the scheme offers to reduce emissions from
Analysing the post-Copenhagen international cli- the maritime sector, while allowing for flexibility in
mate policy, the European Commission has recent- how to achieve this goal.
ly confirmed its ambition to increase its reduction
commitment to 30% provided that other developed It has to be taken into account that trading and oth-
countries do the same and developing countries er transaction costs could place a large burden on
start contributing in proportion to their responsibil- small emitters such as single ships, making trading
ity and capability31. However, according to the Com- inefficient. Another threat to the functioning of the
mission, “at present the conditions set for stepping EU ETS is that of incomplete information or insecu-
to 30% have not been met”32. Therefore the option rity about future policy decisions, which can lead to
for moving to 30% should be suspended in antici- volatility and investment risk in the carbon market.
pation of the right conditions.
A threat for the maritime sector is loss of competi-
In addition, on 26 May 2010 the European Com- tiveness for companies that don’t fall under the
mission published the Communication COM(2010) scheme.
265 final “Analysis of options to move beyond 20%
greenhouse gas emission reductions and assess- In contrast to the conclusions drawn from the ex-
ing the risk of carbon leakage” in which it confirms ternal features of the EU ETS, the internal features
that “the EU will continue to pursue an internation- of the maritime shipping sector do not lend them-
al agreement through the IMO and the UNFCCC. As selves favourably to inclusion in the scheme.
agreed under the climate and energy package, the
EU will take steps to move forward if no such agree- Although the sector has a significant abatement
ment has been agreed by 31 December 2011”. potential, meaning that environmental gains can
be realised, and large ships are already obliged to
hold bunker notes with information about bunker
fuel sold, there are some challenges that need to
29 COM(2008) 30 final, Brussels, 23.1.2008, Communication be overcome in order to make membership of the
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the scheme a success.
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions, 20 20 by 2020. Europe’s
First and foremost, the participating countries need
climate change opportunity.
30 Presidency conclusions, Brussels European Council, 11 and
to decide on an allocation method, which raises po-
12 December 2008, 17271/1/08 REV 1, CONL 5 litical issues and has been the major bottleneck for
31 See COM(2010) 265 final, Brussels, 26.5.2010, over a decade in the international debate.
Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Analysis of
options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission 33 A number of studies comparing market-based and
reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage. command-and-control instruments for different pollutants
32 COM(2010) 86 final, Brussels, 9.3.2010, Communication found that, in all cases, the cost of achieving the same
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the reduction in pollution are between 1.72 and 22 times
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and higher for command-and-control instruments (Tietenberg,
the Committee of the Regions, International climate policy 2003). The previous chapter provides a thorough
post-Copenhagen: Acting now to reinvigorate global action comparison of market-based and command-and-control
on climate change. policy instruments.

40 The EU policy on air and GHG emissions from international shipping

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 40 11/26/10 11:43:45 AM

 JRC Reference Report

The mobile nature of the sector creates a risk of car- of International Justice in the Lotus Case, only Flag
bon leakage, which is a major concern for the envi- States, namely those of which vessels possess the
ronmental effectiveness of the policy and needs to nationality and whose flag the vessel is entitled to
be addressed with great care. fly, can enforce regulations applicable to vessels on
the high seas (Birnie, P. 2009). This principle can
In addition, there are administrative difficulties also be indirectly read by analysing the combined
due to the fact that the ships vary considerably provisions of UNCLOS Article 218 and 228 regulat-
in size, type and use. This means that deciding ing pollution from ships.
on the specific policy design, mainly with respect
to the distribution of allowances (grandfathering Whilst under Article 218 a port State may take le-
based on an historic or benchmark approach, or gal proceedings for discharge violation, Article 228
auctioning), will face the challenge of getting all states that for discharges occurred on the high seas
stakeholders to agree while still coming up with an Flag States are empowered to intervene and sus-
ambitious policy. pend those proceedings. This could cause a severe
limitation of the EU’s jurisdiction to charge taxes
or implement emissions standards outside EU wa-
6.1. Legal constraints on EU ters. In fact, even though Article 218 would allow
environmental policy regulation member Port States to exercise their enforcement
of air emissions from ships jurisdiction over foreign ships which are voluntarily
within their ports, for any violation that occurred in
Developing a regional (European) Emission Trad- the high seas, Flag States could still request to take
ing Scheme for international shipping is a chal- action restricting Port States’ jurisdiction (Bang,
lenging task given the constraints which regulate H.S., 2009).
the international legal framework of the maritime
sector. Indeed, any EU environmental policy regu- Flag States can adopt laws and regulations for the
lating air emissions from maritime transport has prevention, reduction and control of pollution and
to comply with the International Law of the Sea shall exercise full jurisdiction and control in admin-
and, in particular, with the United Nations Conven- istrative, technical and social matters over vessels
tion on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) to which flying their flag.
the EU is signatory.
This provision would empower the EU to impose
The EU, as any other signatory State having a coast- environmental requirements on ships flying EU
line, is entitled under international law to take cer- Member States’ flags. However, the majority of
tain limited steps to protect its own interests within vessels worldwide currently fly “convenience” non-
the world’s oceans. UNCLOS recognises four main EU flags.
zones of varying Coastal States’ jurisdiction: (i)
internal waters – bays, ports and similar enclosed According to UNCLOS Art. 25.2, Coastal States are
areas of the sea; (ii) territorial waters - extending entitled to refuse the admission of a vessel into
12 miles seaward of defined “baselines” along the their internal waters if the vessel does not comply
shore; (iii) a contiguous zone - covering the territo- with the State’s entry conditions but, by so doing,
rial waters and a further 12 miles seaward; and (iv) Port States also have to avoid contravening Article
the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) - extending to 227 which states that “States shall not discrimi-
200 miles. nate in form or in fact against vessels of any other
State”.
A State’s powers range from full sovereign pow-
ers within internal waters to rights limited to the Indeed, there is currently no strong legal basis
exploitation of natural resources in and beyond for the EU to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction,
the EEZ. UNCLOS Article 86 states that all parts of and this is likely to give non-EU states and indus-
the sea which are not included in the abovemen- try bodies grounds for challenging carbon emis-
tioned zones form the high seas. Within these sions reduction measures adopted by the EU for
zones, according to UNCLOS Article 92, ships “shall maritime transport. Two further arguments could
sail under the flag of one State only and…shall be also be brought by non-EU countries against such
subject to its exclusive jurisdiction”. According to measures (Bang, H.S., 2009).
customary law, as stated by the Permanent Court

The EU policy on air and GHG emissions from international shipping 41

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 41 11/26/10 11:43:46 AM

 JRC Reference Report

The challenge could be based on the violation of Within this right, parties are free to navigate set-
the right to innocent passage through territorial ting out the parameters of Coastal States’ jurisdic-
waters. Coastal States are required by UNCLOS Art tion. Non-EU States could also claim a violation of
24 not to hamper the innocent passage of foreign UNCLOS Art. 26 which states that “no charge may
ships through the territorial sea. be levied upon foreign ships by reason only of their
passage through territorial sea” and that “charges
The right to innocent passage represents a cor- may be levied upon a foreign ship passing through
nerstone of the International Law of the Sea. the territorial sea as payment only for specific serv-
Under UNCLOS Articles 18 and 19, ships are ices rendered to the ship”, without discrimination.
deemed to be ‘passing’ when they simply navi- An EU decision to impose an extra-territorial charge
gate through territorial waters without “entering on ships requiring vessels to surrender allowances
internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port at EU entry ports not only due to services provided
facility”, and their passage is considered to be to the ships but to their emissions outside the EU
innocent when it is not “prejudicial to the peace, EEZ could be considered a violation of the above-
good order or security of the coastal State”. mentioned Article (Boyle, A. 2002).

42 The EU policy on air and GHG emissions from international shipping

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 42 11/26/10 11:43:47 AM

 JRC Reference Report

7. Conclusion

Regulating air emissions and GHGs from ships is The Report also analyses the international regula-
part of the broader debate on the sustainability of tory system in which the policy regulation should
the transport system and the environmental im- be included and the current international and Eu-
pacts of transport activities. ropean debate on developing an environmental
policy strategy for this sector.
The complexity of air pollution and climate change
policies for the international maritime transport The current policy actions to abate air emissions
sector calls for a wide range of considerations to be and GHGs from maritime transport relate mainly to
taken into account (Montgomery, 1972; Tietenberg, the quality of fuel used and to the technological op-
2003) requiring policymakers: 1) to set binding tions available.
long-term emission reduction goals, 2) to take
action in a flexible manner, 3) to ensure knowledge Market based instruments such as emissions trad-
and technology sharing of innovative practices, and ing are under discussion at international level
4) transparency, administrative feasibility. within the IMO. Furthermore, the inclusion of the
maritime transport sector within the EU Emission
Our analysis has sketched the state of the art con- Trading Scheme is on the EU strategy to address
cerning the main methodological aspects that have GHGs.
to be considered when designing policy measures
to regulate air emissions and GHGs from interna- Moreover, the environmental impacts of maritime
tional maritime transport. In particular, the Report transport are also related to the growth rate of
provides a review of certain tasks of this process trade, which makes the problem even more press-
(in particular, the estimation of emissions caused ing. This aspect is related to the intensive nature
by maritime activities and the identification of tech- of production and consumption of goods and serv-
nological and policy options to abate air emissions ices, which have been stimulated by several fac-
from ships). tors such as the new global dimension of modern
production and consumption which has re-shaped
Our results show that, because of the high level of European and world trade, and the use of just-in-
uncertainty in air emissions estimations, further time techniques which allow manufacturers and
research is required in this field. In fact, a scientific wholesalers/retailers to dispense with warehouses
debate is still open on the most appropriate way (OECD, 2002). These issues call for the integration
to estimate air emissions. The scarce or limited of any environmental strategy to regulate air emis-
availability of data concerning maritime transport sions from ships into a broader framework which
activities has resulted in the widespread use of includes all the pillars of sustainable transport.
different calculation methodologies. In addition,
the application of new technologies which enable In conclusion, this Report identifies the meth-
more detailed traffic data acquisition puts further odological aspects of designing an environmental
into question the usefulness of the methodologies strategy to regulate air emissions from ships and
proposed so far. shows how to integrate such a strategy in an inter-
national framework.

Conclusion 43

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 43 11/26/10 11:43:48 AM

 JRC Reference Report

8. References

Aabo, K. (2003). Emission Control – 2 stroke engines. COM(2008) 30 final, Brussels, 23.1.2008, Communication
Presented at the “EU Stakeholders Workshop on low- from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
emission shipping” 4 and 5 September 2003. Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions, 20 20 by 2020.
AMVER (2004), Global Ship Observations for a full year. http:// Europe’s climate change opportunity.
[Link]
COM(2010) 265 final, Brussels, 26.5.2010, Communication
Armas, O., Ballesteros, R., Martos, F.J., Agudelo, J.R. (2005). from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Characterization of light duty Diesel engine pollutant Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
emissions using water-emulsified fuel. Fuel, Vol. 84, No. and the Committee of the Regions, Analysis of options
7-8, pp. 1011-1018 to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission
reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage.
Avis M.J., Birch C.H. (2009). Impacts on the EU refining
industry & markets of IMO specification changes & other COM(2010) 86 final, Brussels, 9.3.2010, Communication
measures to reduce the sulphur content of certain fuels. from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Purvin&Gertz. Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions, International climate
Baron, R., and J. Ellis, (2006), “Sectoral crediting mechanisms policy post-Copenhagen: Acting now to reinvigorate
for greenhouse gas mitigation: institutional and global action on climate change.
operational issues”. Organization of Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) and the Environment CONCAWE (1994). The contribution of sulphur dioxide
Directorate of International Energy Agency (IEA). (May emissions from ships to coastal deposition and air
2006) Paris quality in the Channel and southern North Sea area.
Rep. 2/94, Brussels
Buhaug, Ø., Corbett, J.J., Endresen, Ø., Eyring, V., Faber, J.,
Hanayama, S., Lee, D.S., Lee, D., Lindstad, H., Mjelde, Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
A., Pålsson, C., Wanquing, W., Winebrake, J.J., Yoshida, from Ships and Aircraft (1972), 932 UNTS 3; UKTS 119
K. (2009) Second IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2009. (1975), Cmnd. 6228; 11 ILM 262 (1972).
International Maritime Organization. London: March, In force 7 April 1974, Oslo
2009.
Convention for the Protection of the Black sea Against
Bosch, P., Coenen, P., Fridell, E., Å ström, S., Palmer, T., Pollution (1992), with protocols on Pollution from
Holland, M. (2009). Cost Benefit Analysis to Support Land-based Sources, Combating Pollution in Emergency
the Impact Assessment accompanying the revision of Situations, and Pollution by Dumbing, 32 ILM (1993),
Directive 1999/32/EC on the Sulphur Content of certain 1110. All in force 15 January 1994, Bucharest
Liquid Fuels. Final AEA Report, 2009. Available at
[Link] Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
CBA_of_S.pdf N.E. Atlantic (1992), 3 YbIEL (1992) 759; 32 ILM (1993),
1072. In force 25 March 1998, Paris
Butt, N. (2007). The impact of cruise ship generated waste on
home ports and ports of call: A study of Southampton. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Marine Policy 31, 591-598. Baltic sea Area (1992). In force 17 January 2000, Helsinki

Carter, C. (2009). Elimination of a Ship Source Pollutant – Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea
STOP (Stern Tube Oil Pollutant). In proceedings of the Against Pollution (1976); Protocol Concerning
31st propulsion and emission conference. Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the
Motorship. Copenhagen Mediterranean Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances
in Cases of Emergency; Protocol for the Prevention of
CE Delft et al. (2006), Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from
for Shipping and Implementation Guidance for Marine Ships and Aircraft, 15 ILM (1976), 290. All in force 12
Fuel Sulphur Directive. February 1878. 1980 and 1982 Protocols (q.v.). Revised
convention and protocols 1995/6 q.v., Barcelona
Cofala, J., Amann, M., Heyes, C., Wagner, F., Klimont, Z.,
Posch, M., Schöpp, W., Tarasson, Jonson, J.E., Whall, Cooper, D.A. (2003). Exhaust emissions from ships at berth.
L.C., Stavrakaki, A. (2007). Analysis of Policy Measures Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 37(27), pp. 3817-3830
to Reduce Ship Emissions in the Context of the Revision
of the National Emissions Ceilings Directive. Final Corbett, J.J., Fischbeck, P.S. (1997). Emissions from ship.
Report. IIASA Contract No. 06-107 Science, 278(5339), 823-824

COM (2009) 39 final, Brussels, 28.1.2009, Communication Corbett, J., Fischbeck, P., Pandis, S., (1999). Global nitrogen
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the and sulphur inventories for oceangoing ships. Journal of
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee Geophysical Research 104, pp. 3457-3470.
and the Committee of the Regions.
Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement Corbett, J.J., Koehler, H.W. (2003). Updated emissions from
in Copenhagen. ocean shipping. Journal of Geophysical Research
Vol. 108(D20)

44 References

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 44 11/26/10 11:43:49 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Corbett, J.J., Koehler, H.W. (2004). Considering alternative Endresen, O., Sorgard, E., Behrens, H.L., Brett, P.O., Isaksen,
input parameters in an activity-based ship fuel I.S.A. (2007). A historical reconstruction of ships’ fuel
consumption and emission model: Reply to comment consumption and emissions. Journal of Geophysical
by Oyvind Endresen et al. on “Updated emissions from Research, Vol. 112(D12301)
ocean shipping”. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.
109(D23303) Endresen, O., Sorgard, E., Sundet, J.K., Dalsoren, S.B.,
Isaksen, I.S.A., Berglen, T.F., Gravir, G. (2003). Emission
Corbett, J.J., Wang, H., Winebrake, J.J. (2009). The from international sea transportation and environmental
effectiveness and costs of speed reduction on emissions impact. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 108(D17)
from international shipping. Transport Research Part D,
Vol. 14(8) Entec UK Ltd (2005). Service Contract on Ship Emissions:
Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments.
Dalsoren, S.B., Eide, M.S., Endresen, O., Mjelde, A., Gravir, General Report.
G., Isaksen, I.S.A. (2008). Update on emissions and
environmental impacts from the international fleet of Entec UK Ltd (2005a). Report “Service Contract on Ship
ships. The contribution from major ship types and ports. Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, Instruments. Task 2a - Shore-Side Electricity” for the
Vol. 8, pp. 18323-18384 European Commission, DG Environment.

Davidson, M.D., Van Essen, H. (2009). “EU Transport GHG: Entec UK Ltd (2005b). Report “Service Contract on Ship
Routes to 2050. Methodological issues related to Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-
assessing cost effectiveness of climate change based Instruments, Task 2b – NOx Abatement” for the
abatement options”. For the European Commission, European Commission, DG Environment.
DG Environment.
Entec, UK Ltd (2005c). Report “Service Contract on Ship
Decision 406/2009/EC adopted jointly by the European Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based
Parliament and the Council. Instruments, Task 2c - SO2 Abatement” for the European
Commission, DG Environment.
Det Norske Veritas, (2005). Technical Report in Norwegian
for the Norwegian Department of the Environment EPA (2003). Final Regulatory Support Document: Control
“Reduksjoner av NOx iFartøyer – Tiltaksanalyse”. of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition
Report Nr 2005-1095. Engines at or above 30 Liters per Cylinder. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council European Commission and ENTEC (2002). Quantification of
emissions from ships associated with ship movements
Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and between ports in the European Community. Dg ENV.C1,
of the Council of 23 April 2009, No L 140 Eur. Comm., Brussels

Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and European Environmental Agency, EEA (2002). Annual
of the Council. European community CLRTAP emission inventory 1990–
2000. Technical Report 91. [Link]
Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and publications/technical_report_2002_91.
of the Council.
EUROSTAT (2000). Transport and Environment – statistics for
Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, EDGAR the transport and environment reporting mechanism
(2009). [Link] (TERM) for the European Union. Luxembourg.

EEB, (2004). Air pollution from ships. A briefing document Eyring, V., Koehler, H.W., van Aardenne, J., Lauer, A. (2005).
by: The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), The Emission from International Shipping: 1. The last 50
European Federation for Transport and Environment years. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 110(D17305)
(T&E), Seas At Risk (SAR), The Swedish NGO Secretariat
on Acid Rain. Eyring, V., Kohler, H., Lauer, A., Lemper, B. (2005b).
Emissions from international shipping: 2. Impact of
EEB (2008) Air Pollution from Ships. Available online future technologies on scenarios until 2050. Journal of
at [Link] index. Geophysical Research, 110.
cfm?month=0&year=0&Air=1
Eyring, V., Isaksen, I.S.A., Berntsen, T., Collins, W.J., Corbett,
Eilts, P., Borchsenius, J. (2001). Available NOx emissions J.J., Endresen, O., Grainger, R.G., Moldanova, J.,
reduction techniques – costs, benefits and field Schlager, H., Stevenson, D.S. (2009). Transport Impacts
experience. In 23rd CIMAC World Congress on on atmosphere and Climate: Shipping. Atmospheric
Combustion Engine Technology. Hamburg, Germany. Environment, doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.04.059

Endresen, O., Sorgard, E., Bakke, J., Isaksen, I.S.A. (2004).

Substantiation of a lower estimate for the bunker
inventory: Comment on “Updated emissions from ocean
shipping” by James J. Corbett and Horst W. Koehler.
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 109(D23302)

References 45

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 45 11/26/10 11:43:51 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Faber, J., Markowska, A., Nelissen, D., Davidson, M., Eyring, IMO Marine Environment Committee, 58th Session
V., Cionni, I., Selstad, E., Kågeson, P., Lee, D., Buhaug, MEPC 58/23/Add.1
Ø, Lindtsad, H., Roche, P., Humpries, E., Graichen, J.,
Cames, M., Schwarz, W. (2009). Technical support for IMO Marine Environment Committee, 59th Session
European action to reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions MEPC 59/4/7
from international maritime transport. Tender DG ENV.
C3/ATA/2008/0016. Delft, CE Delft, IMO Marine Environment Committee, 59th Session
MEPC 59/4/26
Faber, J., Rensema, K. (2008). “Left on the high seas”. Global
Climate Policies for International Transport. CE Delft. IMO (2000). Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships,
(October 2008) Delft. Issue no. 2 - 31 March 2000 [Link]
methods_and_science/emissions_from_intl_transport/
Georgakaki, A., Coffey, R.A., Lock, G., Sorenson, S.C. (2005). application/pdf/[Link]
Transport and Environment Database System (TRENDS):
Maritime air pollutant emission modelling. Atmospheric IMO (2009). “Second IMO GHG study 2009; Prevention
Environment, Vol. 39, pp. 2357-2365 of air pollution from ships” International Maritime
Organization (IMO) London, UK
Hall, W.J. 2009. Assessment of CO2 and priority pollutant [Link]
reduction by installation of shoreside power. data_id%3D26047/ [Link]
Resources Conservation and Recycling, doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2009.10.002 IMO (2010) MEPC61/INF.2 “Reduction of GHG Emissions from
ships –Full report of the work undertaken by the Expert
Hansen, J.F. (2009). Fuel efficient LNGC Propulsion using Group on Feasibility Study and Impact Assessment
variable Speed Electric Drives. In proceedings of the 31st of possible Market Based Measures. Note by the
propulsion and emission conference. Secretariat
Motorship. Copenhagen
IPCC (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Hayman, B., Dogliani, M., Kvale, I., Fet, A.M. (2000). Inventories ([Link]
Technologies for reduced environmental impact from public/2006gl/[Link])
ships: ship building, maintenance and dismantling
aspects Conference Proceedings, ENSUS 2000 Marine Jalkanen, J.-P., Brink, A., Kalli, J., Pettersson, H., Kukkonen,
Science and Technology for Environmental Sustainability J., Stipa, T. (2009). A modelling system for the exhaust
Department of Marine Technology and Science and emissions of marine traffic and its application in the
Coastal Management. University of Newcastle upon Tyne Baltic Sea area. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
2 - 12 Newcastle, UK 2000. ENSUS 2000. 4.-6.09.00 Discussions, Vol. 9, pp. 15339-15373

Holland, M., Hunt, A., Hurley, F., Navrud, S., Watkiss, P. (2005). Jonson, J.E., Simpson, D., Fagerli, H. and Solberg, S. (2006).
Methodology for the Cost-Benefit Analysis for CAFE. Can we explain the trends in European ozone levels?
Volume 1 : Overview of the methodology. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 6, pp. 1–16.
Available online : [Link]
Kågeson, P. (2008). “The Maritime Emissions Trading Scheme
Hurley, F., Hunt, A., Cowie, H., Holland, M., Miller, B., Pye, S., (METS)”, Nature Associates (May 2008) Stockholm
Watkiss, P. (2005). Methodology for the Cost-Benefit
Kane, D. (2009). Quantitative and qualitative analysis of vessel
Analysis for CAFE. Volume 2 : Health Impact Assessment.
performance. In proceedings of the 31st propulsion and
Available online: [Link]
emission conference. Motorship. Copenhagen
IAPH (2007). Tool Box for Port Clean Air Programs. Improving
Karila, K., Karkkainen, T., Larmi, M., Niemi, S., Sandstrom,
Air Quality While Promoting Business Development
C.-E., Tamminen, J., Tiainen, J. (2004). Production of
ICOADS, the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere particulate emissions in compression ignition engines.
Data Set. [Link] Otamedia, Espoo, Finland.

IIASA (2007). Analysis of Policy Measures to Reduce Ship Keith, D., Farrell, A., Corbett, J. (2000). True zero-emission
Emissions in the Context of the Revision of the National vehicles in a single step: hydrogen fueled ships with
Emissions Ceilings Directive. Final Report, Contract No. carbon management. In: Fifth International Conference
06/107. Laxenburg, Austria of greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,
Cairns, Australia.
IMO Marine Environment Committee, 57th Session
MEPC 57/WP.8 Lack, D. A., Corbett, J. J., Onasch, T., Lerner, B., Massoli, P.,
Quinn, P. K., Bates, T. S., Covert, D. S., Coffman, D.
IMO Marine Environment Committee, 58th Session Sierau, B., Herndon, S., Allan, J., Baynard, T., Lovejoy,
MEPC 58/4/15 E., Ravishankara, A. R., Williams, E. (2009). Particulate
emissions from commercial shipping: Chemical,
IMO Marine Environment Committee, 58th Session MEPC physical, and optical properties. Journal of Geophysical
58/4/20, “Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, Legal Research, 114, D00F04, doi:10.1029/2008JD011300
Aspects of the Organization’s Work on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in the Context of the Kyoto Protocol”.

46 References

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 46 11/26/10 11:43:52 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Hendricks, J., Jöckel, P., Lohmann, U. MARIN (2008). Report, no. 94. Available at [Link]
(2007). Global model simulations of the impact of [Link]/web/file?uuid=b7937e4c-c23c-46e0-a042-
ocean-going ships on aerosols, clouds, and the radiation 1cf0063d152f&owner=873c4345-f55e-4d84-8f96-
budget. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 7 (19), pp. 058b54e8a911
5061-5079
Marintek (1999). MarPower, Concepts of Advanced Marine
Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Corbett, J.J., Whang, C., Winebrake, J.J. Machinery Systems with Low Pollution and High
(2009). Assessment of Near-Future Policy Instruments Efficiency. State of the art report no. 2, European
for Oceangoing Shipping: Impact on Atmospheric Commission, DG XII., Rep. 220724.01. Norwegian Marine
Aerosol Burdens and the Earth’s Radiation Budget. Technology Research Institute, Trondheim, Norway
Environmental Science and Technology, n.43 (15), pp. ([Link]
5592-5598.
Miola, A., Paccagnan, V., Mannino, I., Massarutto, A., Perujo,
Lavini, G., Pedone, L. (2007). Improvement on Hydrodynamic A., Turvani, M. (2009). External Costs of Transportation
Performance of Conventional Passenger Ship Hulls Case study: maritime transport. EU-Report, Scientific
through RANSE codes application. Presented at RINA’s and Technical Research series.
Design and Operation of Passenger Ships, Cruise and ISSN 1018-5593. Luxembourg
Ferry Conference, London.
Montgomery, W.D. (1972) Markets in Licenses and Efficient
Lloyd’s Maritime Information System (2002). The Lloyd’s Pollution Control Programs. Journal of Economic Theory
Maritime Database. Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Ltd, 5(3), pp. 395-418.
London
Motorship (2009). Emissions: 2009: Shipping goes green
Lloyd’s MIU (2004). Extract from the vessel movement through the side door. Motor Ship (90), 1056,
database. Lloyd’s Maritime Information Unit pp. 38,40,41.

Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (1996). World Fleet Statistics, Olesen, H.R., Winther, M., Ellermann, T., Christensen, J.,
1996, Lloyd’s Regist. Eng. Serv., London Plejdrup, M. (2009). Ship Emissions and air pollution in
Denmark. Present situation and future scenarios. Danish
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (2000). World Fleet Statistics, Ministry of the Environment.
2000, Lloyd’s Regist. Eng. Serv., London Environmental project n. 1306.

Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (2005). World Fleet Statistics, Olivier, J.G.J. et al. (1996). Description of EDGAR Version 2.0 : a
2005, Lloyd’s Regist. Eng. Serv., London set of global emission inventories of greenhouse gases
and ozone depleting substances for all anthropogenic
Lövblad, G., Fridell, E. (2006). Experiences from use of some and most natural sources on a per country basis of 1x1
techniques to reduce emissions from ships degree grid. RIVM Rep. 7710600002. National Institute
([Link] of public health and the environment, Bilthoven,
Netherlands.
Magnus, G. (1852). “Über die Abweichung der Geschosse,”
Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Olivier, J.G.J., Berdowski, J.J.M. (2001). Global emissions
Wissenschaften zu Berlin, pages 1-23. See also: Gustav sources and sinks. In: Berdowski, J., Guicherit, R.,
Magnus (1853) “Über die Abweichung der Geschosse, Heij, B.J. (Eds.), The Climate System. A.A. Balkema
und: Über eine abfallende Erscheinung bei rotierenden Publishers/ Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers, Lisse, The
Körpern” (On the deviation of projectiles, and: On a Netherlands, pp. 33–78.
sinking phenomenon among rotating bodies), Annalen
der Physik, vol. 164, no. 1, pages 1-29. Oonk, H., Hulkskotte, J., Koch, R., Kuipers, G., Van Ling,
J. (2003). Emissiefactoren voor de binnenscheepvaart.
Maler, K.,G., Vincent, J., R. (edited by) (2003) Handbook of TNO
environmental economics. Vol1
Ou, Z., Zhe, J. (2008). AIS Database Powered by GIS
Environmental degradation and institutional responses. Technology for Maritime Safety and Security.
Elsevier, Amsterdam The Journal of Navigation, Vol. 61, pp. 655-665
MAN B&W (2004). Emissions Control MAN B&W Two-stroke Paxian, A., Eyring, V., Beer, W., Sausen R., Wright, C. (2010).
Diesel Engines. MAN B&W Diesel, Present-Day and Future Global Bottom-Up Ship Emission
Copenhagen Denmark. Inventories Including Polar Routes. Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 44, n. 4, pp. 1333-1339
Manner, E., Dentener, F., Van Aardenne, J., Cavalli, F., Vignati,
E., Velchev, K., Hjorth, J., Boersma, F.b, Vinken, G.c, Perman, R.J., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J., Common, M. (2003).
Mihalopoulos, N., Raes, F. (2009). What can we learn Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 2nd ed.
about ship emission inventories from measurements of London: Addison Wesley Longman.
air pollutants over the Mediterranean Sea? Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics Volume 9, Issue 18, pp. 6815-6831 Presidency conclusions, Brussels European Council, 11 and 12
December 2008, 17271/1/08 REV 1, CONL 5

References 47

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 47 11/26/10 11:43:53 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Skjølsvik, K. O., Andersen, A.B., Corbett, J.J., Skjelvik, J.M.
Pollution from Land-Based Sources (1980). 19 ILM. In (2000). Study of greenhouse gas emissions from ships
force 17 June 1983, Athens (report to International Maritime Organization on the
outcome of the IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Protocol Relating to the Convention for the Prevention of from Ships), MEPC 45/8, MARINTEK Sintef Group/
Pollution from Ships, MARPOL (1978). 17 ILM (1978), Carnegie Mellon Univ., Center for Economic Analysis/Det
Current texts in IMO, Consolidated Edition Norske Veritas, Trondheim, Norway.

Purple Finder (2001). Purple Finder Database. [Link] SOLAS (1974). International Convention for the Safety of Life
purplefi[Link] at Sea [Link]
asp?topic_id=257&doc_id=647
Purvin & Gertz – Avis, M.J., Birch, C.H. (2009). Impacts on the
EU refining Industry & Markets of IMO Specification Sorgard, E., Mjelde, A., Sverud, T., Endresen, O. (2001).
Changes & Other Measures to Reduce the Sulphur Technologies for reduction of pollution from ships.
Content of Certain Fuels. Report No. 99-2033. Det Norske Veritas, The Research
Council of Norway, Norway.
Rahai, H.R., Hefazi, H. (2006). Emission Control Technologies
for Ocean Going Vessels. Center for Energy and Stochniol, A. (2007). “A new market-based CO2 emission
Environmental Research and Services (CEERS), California reduction scheme”. SD2: Supporting Document #2 for
State University, US. discussion of MEPC 56/4/9 (July 2007) London.

Rainer F. (2004). New Elements for the Assessment of External Stopford, M. (2009). “Maritime Economics”, Routledge
Costs from Energy Technologies – Final Report – OER
European Commission. [Link] Sudiro, M., Bertucco, A. (2008). Production of synthetic
forschung/projektwebsites/newext/ gasoline and diesel fuels by alternative processes using
natural gas, coal and biomass: process simulation and
Rentz, O., Schleef, H-J., Dorn, R., Sasse, H., Karl, U. (1996). economic analysis. International Journal of Alternative
Emission control at stationary sources in the Federal Propulsion 2, [Link] (2008), Review of Maritime
Republic of Germany. Vol.1: Sulphur oxide and nitrogen Transport
oxide emission control. Karlsruhe, Germany, French-
German Institute for Environmental Research, 588 pp Takeshita, M. (1995). Air Pollution Control Costs
(Aug 1996). for Coal-Fired Power Stations, IEAPER/17, IEA Coal
Research, London, UK.
Ritchie, A., de Jonge, E., Hugi, C., Cooper, D. (2005). Service
Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Tan, A.K. (2006).Vessel-source Marine Pollution: The Law and
Market-based Instruments, Task 2c – SO2 Abatement. Politics Of International Regulation (Cambridge Studies
Final Report, Entec UK Limited, Northwick, England. In International And Comparative Law),
Cambridge University Press
Sarvi, A. (2004). Smoke and particulate matter emissions
from large diesel engines. Licentiate’s thesis. Helsinki Thomas, R., Lauretis, R.D., Fontelle, J.P., Hill, N., Kilde, N.,
University of Technology, Department of Mechanical Rypdal, K. (2002). Shipping Activites, Chapter B842, in
Engineering, Espoo, Finland. EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook, edited
by Lavender, K., Reynolds, G., Webster, A., Rypdal, K.
Schmid, H., Weisser, G. (2005). Marine Technologies for European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark
Reduced Emissions, In 2nd annual conference on green
ship technology. Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Tietenberg, T. (2003). The tradable permits approach to
protecting the commons: Lessons for Climate Change.
Schreier, M., Kokhanovsky, A.A., Eyring, V., Bugliaro, L., Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19(3), 400-419.
Mannstein, H., Mayer, B., Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J.P.
(2006). Impact of ship emissions on the microphysical, Trozzi C. (2003). Environmental impact of port activities 11th
optical and radiative properties of marine stratus: a case International Scientific Symposium Environment and
study Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 6: 4925-4942. Transport 19-20 June 2003 Avignon (France). Technical
Report 91.
Schrooten, L., De Vlieger, I., Int Panis, L., Chiffi, C., Pastori,
E. (2009). Emissions of maritime transport: A European Trozzi, C. Vaccaro, R. (1998). Methodologies for estimating
reference system. Science of the Total Environment, Vol. future air pollutant emissions from ships. Techne report
408, pp. 318-323 MEET RF98. Techne srl.

Simpson, D., Fagerli, H., Jonson, J.E., Tsyro, S., Wind, P. And Turner, K., R., Pearce, D., Bateman, I. (1993). Environmental
Tuovinen, J.P. (2003). Transboundary Acidification and Economics. An Elementary introduction, Baltimore,
Eutrophication and Ground Level Ozone in Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Unified EMEP Model Description. EMEP/MSC-W Status
Report 1, Part I. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982),
Misc 11 (1983), Cmnd. 8941; 21 ILM, 1261. In force 16
November 1994, Montego Bay

48 References

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 48 11/26/10 11:43:54 AM

 JRC Reference Report

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Wartsila Corporation (2004). Marine Technologies
Framework Convention on Climate Change, 31 ILM for Reduced Emissions: [Link]
(1992), 851; B&B Docs, 252. In force 21 March 1994 Wartsila/docs/en/ship_power/media_publications/
technical_papers/sulzer/marine_technologies_for_
U.S. Coast Guard (2003). AMVER Database, reduced_emissions.pdf
[Link]
Wartsila Corporation (2004a). Lifetime Responsibility, Annual
U.S. Army Corps of Engineering (2004). Vessel Entrances and Report 2004, Sustainability Report.
Clearances. Waterborne Commerce Statistic Centre,
New Orleans. Wartsila Corporation (2009). Energy Efficiency Catalogue.
[Link]/ndc/data/ [Link] Accessed September 20th, 2009 at the following
link: [Link]
Wang, C., Corbett, J.J. (2005). Geographical Characterization ,generalcontent,AFE73453-FAFD-4C50-BD82-
of Ship Traffic and Emissions. Transportation Research B0BE5B01012B,D9A10979-D5B8-4906-98C1-
Record, Vol. 1909 94619AC21A73,,[Link]

Wang, C., Corbett, J.J. (2007). The costs and benefits of Wilde, H.P.J., Kroon, P., Mozaffarian, M., Sterker, T. (2007).
reducing SO2 emissions from ships in the US West Quick Scan of the Economic Consequences of Prohibiting
Coastal waters. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 12, Residual Fuels
pp. 577-588 in Shipping. ENC-E-07-051.

Wang, C., Corbett, J.J., Firestone, J. (2007a). Modelling Winebrake, J.J., Corbett, J.J., Green, E.H., Lauer, A., Eyring, V.
Energy Use and Emissions from North American (2009). Mitigating the Health Impacts of Pollution from
Shipping: Application of the Ship Traffic, Energy, Oceangoing shipping: an assessment of low-sulphur fuel
and Environmental Model. Environmental Science & mandates. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol.
Technology, Vol. 41(9), pp. 3226-3232 43(13), pp. 4776-4782

Wang, C., Corbett, J.J., Winebrake, J.J. (2007b). Cost- Winkler, J. (2009). Efficient ship designs can regulate CO2
Effectiveness of Reducing Sulphur Emission from Ships. now. In proceedings of the 31st propulsion and emission
Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 41(24), pp. conference. Motorship. Copenhagen
8233-8239
Winther, M. (2008). New national emission inventory for
Wang, C., Corbett, J.J., Firestone, J. (2008). Improving Spatial navigation in Denmark. Atmospheric Environment. Vol.
Representation of Global Ship Emissions Inventories. 42, pp. 4632-4655
Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 42(1),
pp. 193-199 Woodruff, S.D., Diaz, H.F., Elms, J.D., Worley, S.J. (1998).
COADS Release 2 Data and Metadata enhancements for
Wang, H. (2010). The comparisons of Speed Reduction improvements of marine surface flux fields. Physics,
with other policy instruments in GHG mitigation from Chemistry, and Earth Sciences, Vol. 23, No. 5-6
containership. In Proceedings of the 89th TRB Annual
Meeting. Washington DC

Wang, H., Wang, C., Zhang, L. (2010). Evaluating the Economic

Reasons of China’s Stance on Ship-based GHG reduction
negotiations. In Proceedings of the 89th TRB Annual
Meeting. Washington DC

References 49

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 49 11/26/10 11:43:55 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Annex A. The main technological options

for abating air emissions from ships

A.1. Ship design Interceptor trim planes (fuel consumption)

Efficiency of scale (fuel consumption) Interceptor trim planes can be applied to both new
and existing ferries and ro-ro ships and consists of
Usually, the larger a ship is, the more efficient positioning a vertical metal plate on the transom of
it becomes. This can be reflected in both the the ship covering most of its breadth. Due to the
construction of new ships and the optimised great pressure that is usually exerted in that area,
use of existing ones. Ports, machineries and the interceptor has a great stabilisation capability,
infrastructures need to be adapted. Optimising leading to an increase in efficiency of up to 4%. Its
the ship’s size will result in a 4-5% increase in payback time is typically short (Wartsila, 2009).
transport efficiency. This strategy can be applied to
tankers, containers, ro-ro ships and ferries and can Ducktail waterline extension (fuel consumption)
be considered to have a short payback time after its
implementation (Wartsila, 2009). This operates on a similar principle as that of the
interceptor, but in this case the aft of the ship is
Reduce ballast (fuel consumption) lengthened. The best results are obtained when
coupled with the interceptor. It has been applied
In order to increase its stability, a ship is usually to containers, ro-ro ships and ferries. The ducktail
provided with additional weight in the lowest part waterline extension has a short payback time. A 7%
of the hull. This weight (usually obtained using wa- increase in efficiency is expected.
ter), called ballast, is stored in a particular tank of
the ship. It causes a higher resistance to the ship’s Minimising resistance of hull openings (fuel
displacement and thus a higher consumption of consumption)
fuel. Reducing the ballast to the minimum feasible
level can save up to 7% of fuel consumption. In ad- Openings on the ship’s hull are usually created as
dition, in new ships, a further ballast reduction can bow thruster tunnels. Bow thrusters are very im-
be made without reducing the stability of the ship portant for increasing the manoeuvrability of big
by increasing the beam by 0.25m. This strategy can vessels. However if the openings are not designed
be applied to all vessel categories and is considered properly they can significantly contribute to motion
to have a short payback time (Wartsila, 2009). resistance. Optimising their design will therefore
result in an increased efficiency. It can be applied
Lightweight construction (fuel consumption) to all kinds of new and existing ships. The payback
period is usually short.
An alternative strategy for reducing the weight of a
ship is the use of lightweight structures. This can Air lubrication (fuel consumption)
be applied only to new ships (of all the types) and
should have a short payback time (Wartsila, 2009). Air pumped under the ship’s hull creates a cushion
A maximum 7% increase in efficiency is expected. between the water and the ship itself and leads to
substantially reduced friction. An example of air lu-
Optimum main dimension (fuel consumption). brication is provided by the Air Cavity System (ACS),
which was first implemented by the DK Group, the
A big impact on the ship’s resistance is also made Netherlands. Motion resistance is considerably re-
by the hull fullness ratio (the ratio between the duced. Depending on the type of ship, it results in
hull volume and the product of its maximum different levels of reduced fuel consumption. This
length, breadth and draft). Reducing this fullness reduction ranges from a minimum of 3.5% for fer-
ratio will result in a more efficient ship (an increase ries to a maximum of 15% for tankers. The payback
of up to 9% in efficiency). This can be achieved by period is quite short for most ships (Wartsila, 2009;
increasing the ship’s length. This strategy usually it is assumed the system has an average working
has a longer payback time. According to the data life of 30 years).
presented in Sames (2009), the increase in effi-
ciency of e.g. a Baby Post-Panamax vessel would
be about 30% higher than that of the traditional
Panamax vessel.

50 Annex A.

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 50 11/26/10 11:43:57 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Since the minimal length of the vessels to which this (Wartsila, 2009).
strategy can be applied is 225m, in IMO (2009) the
following ship categories have been considered: Propeller design and monitoring (fuel
consumption)
• Tankers (crude oil and bulk > 60,000 dwt, LPG
> 50,000 m3 capacity and all LNG tankers) The propeller(s) of a ship plays an important role
in the consumption of fuel. Several strategies can
• Container Vessels > 2,000 TEU be adopted to increase its efficiency, such as intro-
ducing: i) optimised interaction between propel-
The analyses carried out in IMO (2009) consider ler and hull, ii) propeller-rudder combinations, iii)
half of the fuel reduction assumed by the technol- advanced propeller blade section, iv) propeller tip
ogy suppliers (i.e. 5% for tankers and 3% for con- winglets, v) propeller nozzle and vi) propeller moni-
tainers). The cost efficiency data reported in Table toring. Almost all these strategies can be applied
5 (IMO, 2009, Annex IV, page 275) was obtained us- to both new and existing ships (all can be applied
ing the cost of new ships reported in UNCTAD (2008) to tankers and containers, while only some of them
(with a 0.7 correction factor) and assuming that the can be applied to the other ship types). The pay-
ACS system should have a 2-3% impact on the price back period is generally short. Overall, these strat-
of a new ship. It is worth noting that, according to egies can contribute to a 15% increase in efficiency.
IMO (2009), the smoothness of the hull has a big In IMO (2009) the cost effectiveness of propeller
influence on the effectiveness of this measure. This performance monitoring, propeller/rudder com-
of course leads to extra maintenance costs. bination and upgrading, and propeller upgrading
(with winglet, nozzle and boss cap fins) has been
Tailoring machinery concept for operation (fuel evaluated. The results are reported in Table 6 (tak-
consumption) en from IMO (2009) Annex IV, pages 279-280). The
latter has been estimated assuming a capital cost
The efficiency of new-build ferries and OSV’s can be of €20,000 for a 735kW engine and of €146,000 for
improved by tailoring the machinery concept to the 22,050kW engine (the cost varies linearly with the
operation required. As an example, the high pro- power between the two extreme values), a 10-year
pulsion efficiency of a single skeg hull form is com- lifespan and that the strategy can be applied to all
bined with the manoeuvring performance of steer- vessels.
able thrusters. The concept is limited to new-build
ferries and OSVs. It has a short payback time and Constant versus variable speed operation (fuel
can increase the ship’s efficiency by up to 35%. consumption)

Reducing the number of revolutions of the propel-

A.2. Propulsion lers with the speed would save up to 5% of fuel.

Wing thrusters (fuel consumption) Wind Power (fuel consumption)

Wing thrusters present an innovative propulsion A very promising option for increasing a vessel’s
concept which can increase efficiency by 8-10%. It efficiency is to use wind energy. Different
can only be adopted by new ro-ro ships, ferries and possibilities for harnessing this energy exist. One
OSVs. It is considered to have a quite short payback option would be to install sails on the deck or to
period (Wartsila, 2009). attach a kite to the bow of the ship (leading to an
increase in efficiency of up to 20% for all kind of
CRP propulsion (fuel consumption) ships, apart from OSVs), while another would be to
use vertical rotors which can convert wind power
In this propulsion concept, a single propeller is into thrust, exploiting the so-called Magnus effect
substituted by two propellers, one behind the (Magnus, 1852). The latter, which can only be
other, that rotate in opposite directions. It can applied to tankers and ro-ro ships, can potentially
be adopted by all new-build ships. The efficiency improve efficiency by 30%. A medium payback
gain is around 10-15%. The implementation costs time characterises both options. According to
seem to be quite a lot higher than those of the Faber et al. (2009), rotors placed on ship decks
other solutions, resulting in a longer payback time can help to reduce fuel consumption by between

Annex A. 51

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 51 11/26/10 11:43:58 AM

 JRC Reference Report

3.6% (for a crude oil tanker with deadweight (dwt) contain 1,500 litres of oil, it is possible to imagine
< 200,000 tonnes) and 12.4% (for a bulk carrier how significant the problem is. Recently, the possi-
with dwt < 99,000 tonnes). In the scenario of using bility of substituting the oil with seawater has been
a towing kite to use the wind energy, the optimal evaluated (Carter, 2009). The first outcomes of this
configuration is achievable only with vessels of strategy are the environmental and economic ben-
a minimum 30m in length and a minimum speed efits connected with avoiding oil use. Furthermore,
of 16 knots. Therefore, only tankers and bulk as shown in Lavini et al. (2007), the use of seawater
carriers are considered as potential users (IMO, also allows an efficiency increase of around 2%.
2009). The IMO report (IMO, 2009) also attempts
to evaluate the 2020 cost efficiency of this kind
of application. Starting from the available towing A.3. Machinery
kites (up to 640m2) and assuming that kites of up
to 50,000m2 will be available by 2020 to be used in Hybrid auxiliary power generation (fuel
the largest vessels, the report provides results as consumption)
given in Table 6 on Cost efficiency and abatement
potential (see IMO, 2009, Annex IV, page 272). A hybrid system that uses the electric energy pro-
This table considers two scenarios based on the duced by a fuel cell and stored in batteries can max-
number of days at sea for which the kite can be imise energy efficiency by balancing the loading of
used (33 or 67%). each component. Despite the fact that the overall
increase in efficiency is less than 2%, the use of the
Pulling thrusters (fuel consumption) fuel cell can lead to a reduction of NOx and PM by
more than 60% and a reduction of CO2 by about 30%
Another technological option dedicated to new fer- (Wartsila, 2009). It can be implemented on all types
ries, ro-ro and OSV ships is the pulling thruster. of new ships and has a short payback period.
Different configurations can be chosen leading to
a potential 10% reduction in fuel consumption. This When in ports, it would be advisable for ships to use
option is characterised by a quite short payback shore-side electricity instead of producing it. This
period, according to Wartsila (2009). is likely to generate considerable emission reduc-
tions since the average efficiency of power stations
Seawater Lubricated Stern Tube Bearing System is much higher than that of ships’ power genera-
(fuel consumption+ oil waste reduction) tors. In addition, the pollution generated by power
plants (including noise and vibrations) is likely to
Apart from atmospheric emissions, maritime trans- be produced in less densely populated areas (with
port also impacts the environment through the dis- respect to the areas surrounding the biggest ports)
charge of waste oil into the sea. A source of this oil and thus its external cost should be lower. In Hall
is that contained in the stern tube. This oil is needed (2009), an analysis of the efficiency of shore-side
to allow the seal of the propulsion system to work as opposed to onboard power generation was car-
properly. The problem is that, in some cases, slight ried out. The following table gives a comparison of
damage to the system makes the oil flow directly emissions generated by the production of shore-
into the sea. Considering that typical stern tubes side and onboard electricity for the UK.

Table 11. Potential emissions reduction using shore-side electricity for the UK

Ships power generator Power station

Pollutant Reduction (%)
emissions (g/kWhe) emissions (g/kWhe)
NOx 14.1 1.2 91.6
CO 0.9 0.2 75.6
SO2 2.2 1.2 45.8
CO2 718.6 542.6 24.5

Source: Hall (2009) Table I, page 3

52 Annex A.

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 52 11/26/10 11:43:59 AM

 JRC Reference Report

However, the situation is not positive everywhere. compromising on component temperatures or en-
In China, Indonesia, Russia, and the United Arab gine reliability. Currently, the Basic IEM is only ap-
Emirates, replacing onboard with shore-side power plicable for slow-speed 2 stroke engines. Since all
production facilities would lead to an increase in cylinders can be changed simultaneously, instal-
pollutant emissions. On the other hand, the situa- lation can take a day per engine and does not re-
tion is more favourable in countries such as Nor- quire being in dry dock. However, all new engines
way, France, Belgium, Brazil, Japan, Spain and Italy of this type are thought to have these valves fitted
than in the UK, due to a more extensive use of re- as standard. Slide valves lead to a reduction in NOx,
newable sources of energy. VOC and PM emissions (Aabo, 2003).

In Entec (2005a), an attempt was made to provide Advanced IEMs are optimised combinations of
an estimation of the cost of using shore-side elec- a number of IEMs developed for particular en-
tricity. Results are reported in the following table. gine families. They include: retard injection (30%

Table 12. Shore-Side electricity costs (€/tonne) (ENTEC, 2005A, Table 5.2, Page 39)

Small Vessel Medium Vessel Large Vessel

Emission Ship type
€/tonne €/tonne €/tonne
New 9,662 5,371 3,847
NOx
Retrofit 12,086 6,631 4,704
New 9,889 5,498 3,937
SO2
Retrofit 12,370 6,788 4,815
Source: ENTEC (2005A), Table 5.2, Page 39

Diesel electric machinery (fuel consumption) reduction estimation of NOx, EPA, 2003, but also
risk of reduced efficiency), higher compression
A similar concept can also be applied to the main ratio (up to 35% NOx reduction, Wartsila 2004a),
engines of a ship. The use of diesel electric machin- increased turbo efficiency, common rail injection,
ery in normal operations can provide great benefits etc. The most common combination used is that of
to the ship’s overall efficiency. The system can be increased compression ratio, adapted fuel injec-
applied to new-build ro-ro ships, ferries and OSVs. tion, valve timing and different nozzles (EPA, 2003).
The payback period is relatively short. The situa- A reduction of 30-40% in NOx emissions is gener-
tion would be even better in the case of a fully elec- ally achieved. Wartsila, Caterpillar and FMC are the
tric main engine (see Hansen, 2009). Up to 20% main manufactures. However, Advanced IEMs for
savings in fuel are estimated. ships are generally still in the development phase
(Wartsila Corporation, 2004).
Internal Engine Modification (IEM) (NOx, VOC, PM)
Water Injection (NOx)
Internal Engine Modifications involve changes
to the combustion process within the engine and Water injection is used to reduce the combustion
are designed to optimise combustion, improve air temperature. Using a valve, it cools the combustion
charge characteristics or alter the fuel injection chamber during or before combustion, by injecting
systems. Since many parameters influence the water directly into the cylinder (Wartsila, 2004a).
combustion efficiency and emission formation, a The engines with water injection are equipped with
number of technological changes have been pro- a combined injection valve and nozzle that allows
posed. Many of these aim to cut NOx emissions by injection of water and fuel oil into the cylinder.
reducing peak temperatures and pressures in the Since the water and the fuel system are separat-
cylinder. IEMs can be divided into two main catego- ed, neither will affect the operation of the engine.
ries: Basic and the Advanced (Entec, 2005b). Basic However, separate pumps for the fuel and water are
IEMs change the conventional fuel valves with low- needed, and storage and bunkering of freshwater
NOx slide valves. The purpose is to optimise spray is necessary. Wartsila and Man B&W are the main
distribution in the combustion chamber without producers of water injection technologies. In order

Annex A. 53

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 53 11/26/10 11:44:01 AM

 JRC Reference Report

to achieve a 50-60% NOx reduction, a 40-70% water/ reach 90% NOx reduction, approximately 15g of
fuel ratio is required (Sarvi, 2004). Unfortunately, urea are needed per kWh energy from the engine
this leads to an increase in fuel consumption and (EEB, 2004). Moreover, lower fuel consumption
smoke emissions and, considering the elevated can be combined with low NOx emissions because
costs, has a short lifetime (Eilts and Borchsenius, the engine may be fuel-optimised. The most
2001). Alternatively, the Humid Air Motor (HAM) critical problems are the space requirement for the
uses seawater to add water vapour to the com- catalyst elements and storage of ammonia or urea,
bustion air. Based on decreasing the combustion and the significant investment and operational
temperature it reduces NOx formation by up to costs. Clean fuel will prolong the life of the catalyst
80% (Eyring et al., 2005b). From an economic point and decrease the maintenance necessary. Once
of view, high initial costs have to be sustained to installed, it will generally operate nearly 100% of
install the humidifier, which also occupies a large the time (Trozzi and Vaccaro, 1998; Sorgard et al.,
surface and volume. However, the low consumption 2001). Another option is Selective Non-Catalytic
of fuel and lubricating oil consumption reduces the Reduction (SNCR), which works in a similar way
operating costs of the engine. The experiment car- to Selective Catalytic Reduction but without the
ried out on the Viking Line’s MS Mariella has shown use of a catalyst. A reducing agent (ammonia or
a NOx emission reduction from 17 to between 2.2 urea) injected during the combustion process
and 2.6 g/kWh, and a decrease in fuel consumption converts the nitrogen oxides into nitrogen and
of 2-3% (Det Norske Veritas, 2005). water, reducing NOx emissions by 50% (Sorgard
et al., 2001; Marintek, 1999). The drawback of
NOx control methods (NOx, fuel consumption, par- this system is that it is less efficient than the SCR
ticulate matter) method, because only 10-12% of ammonia reacts
with NOx. Since the cost of ammonia is about
These methods are based on treating the engine the same as the cost of heavy fuel oil (Trozzi and
exhaust gas either by re-burning the exhaust gas Vaccaro, 1998) and since the system requires
(Exhaust Gas Recirculation, EGR) or passing it extensive modification to the engine, the SNCR
through a catalyst or plasma system. option does not appear to be competitive.

Thanks to the recirculation process, a portion of ex- Plasma Reduction Systems are based on the use of
haust gases is filtered, cooled and circulated back plasma. This is a partially ionised gas comprised of
into the engine’s charge air. Decreasing the peak a charge of a neutral mixture of atoms, molecules,
cylinder temperature, it reduces the formation of free radicals, ions and electrons. Electrical power
NOx during the combustion process. A reduction of is converted into electron energy and the electrons
35% in NOx emissions is expected (Entec, 2005b). create free radicals, which destroy pollutants in
On the other hand, smoke and PM tend to increase exhaust emissions. Experiments have shown that
because of the reduced amount of oxygen and Plasma Reduction Systems can reduce NOx by up
longer burning time. Moreover, since exhaust gas- to 97%. It seems to be flexible in terms of size and
es contain gaseous sulphur species, a corrosion shape and should be relatively low cost. However,
problem from sulphuric acid formation is generated for marine use, it is still in the development phase.
(EPA, 1999). For this reason it is difficult to use EGR
for marine diesel engines using heavy fuel oils on a
fully commercial scale. EGR can also be applied in
combination with water. In this case up to a 70% re-
duction in NOx emissions below the IMO limit could
be obtained. The main drawbacks are that the ther-
mal efficiency is reduced and that cost and space
requirements increase significantly.

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) uses a

catalyst to convert NOx emissions into nitrogen
and water by using reaction reducing agents such
ammonia (NH3) or urea (CO(NH 2)2). No limitations
exist regarding the ship types and it can lead to a
reduction in NOx emissions of up to 90-95%. To

54 Annex A.

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 54 11/26/10 11:44:02 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Table 13. Costs used in Bosch et al. (2009) for NOx control methods (Table 6.4, page 33)

Operation and Annual Cost per

Ship Investment Lifetime Fuel cost
Technologies Maintenance Cost NOx tonne
type (k€) (Years) (k€)
(k€) (k€) (€/tonne)

Basic IEM Retrofit 9 2.5 0 0 4 8

Advanced IEM New 129 25 0 0 8 18
EGR+WIFE (0.1% S) New 743 25 15 103 166 340
EGR+WIF New 743 25 22 103 173 350
EGR+WIF New 743 25 39 103 190 390
EGR+WIF New 743 25 65 103 215 440
SCR New 949 25 169 0 297 600
Source: Bosch et al. (2009) (Table 7.8, page 42)

WiFE on Demand is a system that reduces NOx emis- of vessel types and fuel systems. From an economic
sions by providing water in fuel emulsion (WiFE) point of view, it seems to be a cost-effective anti-
“on demand”. It can be very effective in environ- pollution solution.
mental and legislative hot spots. It is a fuel emul-
sion technology for marine vessels that recycles Table 13 presents the, the costs used in Bosch et al.
onboard oily waste water for safe use in the com- (2009) for analysing the cost-effectiveness of NOx
bustion process, eliminating the need for the costly reduction techniques.
disposal of oily waste on land. It can work with a
variety of water-to-fuel ratios, from 0% to 50%, on Table 14 presents an estimation of the cost/effec-
the basis of the water available on the vessel and tiveness of the previous technologies as an elabo-
in proportions that are appropriate to specific op- ration of the estimates provided in Entec (2005b),
erating conditions. 30% of water in fuel emulsion Rehai and Hefazi (2006), Lovblad and Fridell (2006)
can reduce NOx emissions by 30% and particulate and IIASA (2007).
matter by 60-90%. It can be retrofitted to a variety

Table 14. Cost effectiveness of NOx reduction measures per €/tonne

Small Vessel Medium Vessel Large Vessel

Technologies Ship type
€/tonne €/tonne €/tonne
Basic IEM New 11 9 9
Basic IEM Retrofit 35 16 12
Advanced IEM New 93 36 18
Direct water injection New 391 353 328
Humid air motors New 255 222 188
Humid air motors Retrofit 291 274 250
SCR outside SO2 ECA New 704 558 501
SCR outside SO2 ECA Retrofit 770 607 543
SCR inside SO2 ECA New 517 419 379
SCR inside SO2 ECA Retrofit 583 469 422
SCR ships using MD New 393 411 207
SCR ships using MD Retrofit 460 473 341
Source: data are in accordance with those reported in ENTEC (2005b), Rahai and Hefazi (2006), Lovblad and Fridell (2006) and
IIASA (2007). Note that ECA stands for Emission Control Area and MD for marine distillates.

Annex A. 55

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 55 11/26/10 11:44:03 AM

 JRC Reference Report

SOx control methods (SOx, NOx, fuel consumption, Table 15. Indicative scrubber costs for different
particulate matter) ship categories

Sulphur oxide is a pollutant emission produced Vessel Type and average Indicative
fuel usage per year (with Scrubber
during the combustion process. Since it is direct- total vessel power) Cost ($)
ly proportional to the content of sulphur in fuel,
the main method to reduce sulphur oxide emis- Ferry
3,400,000
sions is to reduce the quantity of sulphur in fuel. 23,850 tonnes (34MW)
In 2005, the European Commission established Tanker
that, from January 2010, the marine fuels used at 2,400,000
28,000 tonnes (30MW)
berth shall not exceed 0.1% sulphur content. How-
ever, abatement technologies can also be used to Cruise
3,200,000
reduce sulphur oxide emissions, and the literature 40,000 tonnes (40MW)
documents a large number of these (Rentz et al., Source: Winkler, 2009, page 87
1996; Takeshita, 1995). Combustion modification
represents a first option. It uses the addition of
limestone (CaCO3) or dolomite (CaCO3*MgCO3) into Two scrubbing methodologies exist: Sea Water
conventional boilers. Usually, the process injects Scrubbing and Fresh Water Scrubbing.
limestone into a pulverised coal-fired boiler, which
achieves emission reduction rates from 50 to 60%. Seawater is an ideal scrubbing agent because it
Another method is the Fluidized Bed Combustion has an adequate level of alkalinity and already
(FBC) that removes SOx and NOx emissions with naturally contains 900mg per litre of sulphur, thus
high efficiencies but is still expensive. One of the it is perfect for removing acid gases from exhaust
main problems of the combustion modification emissions. After this process, the water is filtered
process is the large amount of waste that is pro- to remove particulate matter and circulated back
duced. This can be a problem due to the increasing into the sea (EEB, 2004). The solid particles re-
difficulties with waste disposal and costs. moved from the gases are trapped in a settling or
sludge tank and collected for disposal. On the oth-
Scrubbers (NOx, SOx, particulate matter) er hand, fresh water scrubbing uses a caustic soda
(NaOH) solution for neutralising the sulphur. This
Scrubbers deserve a separate section since they washing solution is pumped from the process tank
are able to effectively abate different kinds of pol- through a system cooler to the scrubber. From the
lutants. They use alkaline compounds to neutralise scrubber the washing solution returns to the proc-
sulphur oxides in the scrubber and transfer them ess tanks by gravity. In both cases, uncertainty ex-
into the water in the form of sulphates (Trozzi and ists about the effects of waste water on the sea.
Vaccaro, 1998). They can reduce SOx by 99% and It still remains to be demonstrated whether scrub-
NOx and particulate matter by 85% without increas- bing is environmentally suitable for all parts of the
ing CO2 emissions. Retrofitting the existing com- environment (shallow water, brackish waters and
mercial fleet of over 25,000 dwt would take 5 years enclosed port areas).
and would cost US$ 250 billion, five time more rap-
idly and less costly than, for example, distilling the Generally, the amount of sulphur discharged seems
fuel. Winkler (2009, page 87) provides the prices of to be insignificant compared to the quantity of sul-
scrubbers, as reported here in Table 15. phate that seawater naturally contains (Trozzi and
Vaccaro, 1998).

However, based on the precautionary principle,

Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention forbids dis-
charging waste into estuaries and enclosed ports
(EEB, 2004).

56 Annex A.

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 56 11/26/10 11:44:05 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Table 16. Scrubber Costs used in Bosch et al. (2009)

Investment Lifetime Operation and Maintenance

Technologies Ship type
(k€) (Years) (k€)
Scrubber 1.5-open New 1,148 15 23
Scrubber 1.5-closed New 2,296 15 193
Scrubber 1.5-open Retrofit 2,296 12.5 23
Scrubber 1.5-closed Retrofit 4,592 12.5 193
Scrubber 0.5-open New 1,148 15 23
Scrubber 0.5-closed New 2,296 15 296
Scrubber 0.5-open Retrofit 2,296 12.5 23
Scrubber 0.5-closed Retrofit 4,592 12.5 296
Scrubber 0.1-open New 1,148 15 23
Scrubber 0.1-closed New 2,296 15 347
Scrubber 0.1-open Retrofit 2,296 12.5 23
Scrubber 0.1-closed Retrofit 4,592 12.5 347
Source: Bosch et al. (2009) (Table 7.6, page 40)

In the Bosch et al. (2009) evaluation of the cost/ Main Engine Tuning/Delta Tuning (fuel
effectiveness of scrubbers, a cost of 0.2€2005/l for consumption)
urea, 0.5€2005/l for NaOH and the additional cost
parameters were considered. IMO (2009) provided the estimates (Annex IV, page
285) as reported in this Report in Table 7.
Table 17 shows the cost/effectiveness ratio of the
abovementioned technologies as an elaboration of
the estimates provided in Entec (2005c), Rehai and
Hefazi (2006) and IIASA (2007).

Table 17 Cost effectiveness of SOx reduction measures per €/tonne abated

Small Vessel Medium Vessel Large Vessel

Technologies Ship type
€/tonne €/tonne €/tonne
Sea water scrubbing New 370 340 310
Sea water scrubbing Retrofit 550 520 490
Source: data are in accordance with those reported in EMTEC (2005b), Rahai and Hefazi (2006), Lovblad and Fridell (2006) and
IIASA (2007). Note that the sulphur concentration in the fuel is 2.7% S.

Waste heat recovery (fuel consumption) Common rail (fuel consumption, NOx)

It is possible to recover the thermal energy from the Common rail is an advanced fuel injection technol-
exhaust gas and convert it into electrical energy to ogy which reduces emissions and improves engine
power other systems of the ship. The potential en- performance by maintaining a high and constant
ergy and emissions savings is between 10 and 20% injection pressure at all engine loads (Sarvi, 2004).
(for new systems). It can be applied to all new and By optimising the fuel injection it helps reduce
existing ships (apart from OSVs). The payback pe- NOx, particulate matter and CO2, leading to better
riod seems to be quite short. atomisation of the fuel. From an economic point of
view, total costs can increase because this method
requires stronger fuel injection equipment such as

Annex A. 57

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 57 11/26/10 11:44:06 AM

 JRC Reference Report

fuel pumps, accumulators, injectors and control All possible strategies which aim to reduce the port
unit. IMO (2009, Annex IV, page 285) provided the turnaround time can have a big impact on a ship’s
cost estimates as reported here in Table 7. efficiency. The time saved could be spent on a
longer trip with a reduced speed. Strategies can be
Power management and automation (fuel found for every type of new and existing ship. The
consumption) expected increase in efficiency is around 10%.

Correct power management can contribute to a 5% Propeller surface finish/polishing (fuel

increase in the efficiency of a ship’s operations. It consumption)
can be applied to all types of ship with a quite short
payback period. The increase in efficiency can be As they are always below sea-level, organic ma-
also higher if it is perpetrated automatically. terial growth and waste deposits often gather on
propellers. This strongly impacts the propellers’ ef-
Two possible strategies belonging to this category ficiency. Regular in-service polishing can therefore
have been analysed in IMO (2009), i.e. the shaft help in restoring energy efficiency. Divers can also
power meter and the fuel consumption meter. help avoid the interruption of service.

The shaft power meter strategy assumes that costs In IMO (2009) two types of strategies are consid-
are constant for each ship type and fall within the ered, namely propeller brushing and increased fre-
range US$ 26,000-31,200, an expected lifetime of quency of propeller brushing. For this latter case
10 years, and a reduction potential in the range the following assumptions are made: the cost rang-
of 0.5-2% with the benefits due to optimisation of es in the interval US$ 3,000-4,500 applied every 5
ballast, load and trim. The same assumptions hold years; costs do not vary with ship type (the measure
for the fuel consumption meter strategy except for can be applied to all the ship types); the abatement
the costs, which are considered in the range of US$ potential ranges between 0.5 and 3%. The results
46,000-55,200. In addition, further reductions can of the analyses carried out in IMO (2009, Annex IV,
be obtained by energy saving lighting and power page 280) are given in Table 8.
management. The analysis results taken from IMO
(2009, Annex IV, page 284, 286) are reported in Ta- Hull cleaning and coating (fuel consumption)
ble 7 of this Report.
The growth of algae and organic material on the hull
Speed control pumps and fans (fuel consumption) can significantly contribute to the ship’s resistance.
Decisive factors for hull performance are the age of
The engine cooling water system contains a con- the ship, the time spent in port, service speed, wa-
siderable number of pumps which are major energy ter temperature, and the changes in the draft and
consumers. Controlling their speed could consid- duration of loading conditions. Options that are
erably reduce consumption, and can be applied to readily available to help improve the ship’s per-
all new and existing ships. The estimates reported formance include maintenance, surface pre-treat-
here in Table 7 are taken from IMO (2009) (Annex ment, coating and repeated dry-dock interventions
IV, page 286). (Kane, 2009). Frequent cleaning can help improve
efficiency by about 3%. Alternative modern coat-
Solar power (fuel consumption) ings with smoother and harder hull surfaces, when
clean, can offer lower resistance and are prone to
Depending on the available deck space, solar pan- less fouling, resulting in a much better overall per-
els can help reduce the energy consumption of a formance of the ship.
ship. The expected efficiency is around 4%. This
strategy cannot be applied to containers and OSVs. As anticipated, hull cleaning is also important for
The payback period seems to be relatively short the performance of the ACS system. Coating can be
(according to Wartsila, 2009). used specifically to prevent/reduce the build up of
waste deposits. In IMO (2009), two types of coat-
ings and three types of cleaning were considered.
A.4. Operation
The two types of coating that were considered had
Turnaround time in port (fuel consumption) an approximate cost of US$ 45,000 and US$ 250,000

58 Annex A.

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 58 11/26/10 11:44:07 AM

 JRC Reference Report

respectively. For the first type of coating a fuel/CO2 IMO (2009) made a cost efficiency evaluation con-
saving of 0.5-2% was estimated, while for the other, sidering that, for a given speed reduction percent-
the percentage was estimated to be in the range age (vr), the number of vessels that would need to
1-5% (depending on the ship type). Results of the be purchased is .
cost efficiency estimation of IMO (2009, Annex IV,
page 278) are reported here in Table 8. For the cost of the vessels, the analysis used the
costs reported by UNCTAD (2008) reduced by 70%
Hull cleaning can be carried out by means of hull in order to account for price volatility. Without con-
brushing, underwater hull hydroblasting or dry-dock sidering fuel costs, the operational costs were es-
full blasting. IMO (2009) also estimates the cost ef- timated to be in the range US$ 6,000-8,000/day.
fectiveness of these. For the first type (brushing) Ferries and cruise vessels were not considered in
the cost estimation ranges between US$ 26,000 and the analysis (being in a route/time scheme), nor
US$ 39,000 (to be repeated every 5 years). The same were ro-ro and vehicle carriers, whose prices are
assumptions made for the coating were made for dif- uncertain. Results are reported in Table 8.
ferentiating the cost among the different ship types.
A potential reduction of 1-10% was considered. For Weather routing (fuel consumption)
the second type (hydroblasting) the same hypothe-
ses were made apart from the costs, which were as- The shortest path is not always the most con-
sumed to range in the interval US$ 33,000-50,000. venient. Indeed, under bad weather conditions a
For the third type (dry-dock full blasting), the cost longer, but smoother path could result in lower fuel
ranges between US$ 68,000 and US$ 81,500, the consumption. Planning the voyage in this way can
process has to be repeated every 25 years and the lead to considerable benefits in terms of efficiency.
abatement potential is estimated to be in the inter- In IMO (2009, Annex IV, page 285) a cost effective-
val 5-10%. The results obtained (IMO, 2009, Annex ness analysis of this option was performed with
IV, page 282, 283) are reported in Table 8. the following hypotheses: cost estimated to be in
the range US$ 800-1,600, reduction potential in
Another methodology for increasing ship efficiency the range 0.1-4% and applicability extended to all
is based on hull performance monitoring. In this vessels with route flexibility (no ferries or cruise
case, the average cost is estimated to be about ships). Results are reported in Table 8.
US$ 45,000 every 5 years, plus US$ 5,000 each
year. It can be applied to all ship types and the re- Vessels trim (fuel consumption)
duction potential is considered to be in the interval
0.5-5%. The results are reported in Table 8. By regulating the sailing conditions in order to find
the optimum trim, it is possible to increase energy
Ship speed reduction (fuel consumption) efficiency by about 5%. However, it is not always
easy to find the optimum trim and thus this strat-
Emissions from a vessel are roughly related to the egy can be very complicated. The payback period
square of the vessel’s speed. Therefore, reducing seems to be relatively short (Wartsila, 2009).
ship speed is an effective way of cutting energy
consumption and thus emissions. Given the same Autopilot adjustment (fuel consumption)
distance, a reduction in speed of 1 knot will result in
an 11% increase in efficiency. According to Corbet et A better autopilot can help to save on energy con-
al. (2009), this strategy might be preferred by ship sumption since it offers higher stability to the ship.
operators in the event of the introduction of CO2 trad- IMO (2009, Annex IV, page 285) has provided the
ing schemes. Indeed, by halving the ship’s average estimations reported in Table 8.
speed, its CO2 emissions would be abated by around
70%. The problem is the type of strategy adopted to Energy saving operation awareness (fuel
preserve the scheduled frequency. Should the time consumption)
lost be recovered through reduced in-port turna-
round time, then the abatement of CO2 emissions is A culture of fuel saving supported by incentives or
likely to be even higher. On the other hand, should bonuses to the crew of a ship can help the company
additional ships have to be added, the reduction will to save a big percentage of its energy consumption.
be less significant (in this case this option would lead Training and a measuring system are indispensable
to a dramatic increase in operating costs and thus it to the implementation of this strategy.
is unlikely that ship operators would accept it).

Annex A. 59

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 59 11/26/10 11:44:08 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Annex B - The Law of the Sea: Introductory summary

The process of the law of the sea developed from an the ships and the competence of their crews, com-
initial approach based on separate ad hoc attempts plying with labor laws and setting standards of con-
to regulate specific problems, such as dumping or struction, design, equipment and seaworthiness35.
pollution from ships, to a more comprehensive
legislative action. It was formally established in the UNCLOS Art 94.5 requires Flag States to take any
1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). steps which may be necessary to secure observ-
In its Preamble, UNCLOS defines itself as a “legal ance with generally accepted international regula-
order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate tions, procedures and practices. The obligation is
international communication, and will promote the repeated in relation to oil pollution in Art 217.
peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable
and efficient utilization of their resources, the A State having a coastline is entitled under inter-
conservation of their living resources, and the national law to take certain limited steps to protect
study, protection and preservation of the marine its own interests. UNCLOS recognises four main
environment”. zones of different Coastal States’ jurisdiction: (i)
internal waters – bays, ports and similar enclosed
Providing a global framework to guarantee free- areas of the sea; (ii) territorial waters - extending
dom of navigation while regulating environmental 12 miles seaward of defined “baselines” along the
protection and the use and conservation of the shore; (iii) a contiguous zone - covering the terri-
sea’s resources, UNCLOS can be seen as innovative torial waters and a further 12 miles seaward; and
framework in the field of international environmen- (iv) the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)- extending
tal law. To set limits on national jurisdiction over to 200 miles. A State’s powers range from full sov-
ocean space, access to the sea, navigation, protec- ereign powers within internal waters to rights lim-
tion and preservation of the maritime environment, ited to the exploitation of natural resources in and
UNCLOS distinguishes three levels of enforcement above the EEZ. According to UNCLOS Article 86,
jurisdiction: all parts of the sea which are not included in the
abovementioned zones form the high seas. Within
• by Flag States; these zones ships “shall sail under the flag of one
State only and…shall be subject to its exclusive
• by Coastal States; jurisdiction”36.

• by Port States. According to customary law, only Flag States can

enforce regulations applicable to vessels on the
These levels of distinction are further broken down high seas37. This principle can also be indirectly
by UNCLOS depending on whether they relate to read by analysing the combined provisions of Ar-
States’ legislative or exclusive jurisdiction. The ticles 218 and 228 which regulate pollution from
first defines the extent to which States may adopt ships. Whilst under Article 218 a Port State may
legally binding provisions and rules, while the lat- take legal proceedings for discharge violation, Arti-
ter circumscribes States’ power to take measures to cle 228 stipulates that Flag States are empowered
ensure the observation of the same provisions34. to intervene and suspend those proceedings for
discharges occurring on the high seas 38.
Flag States, namely those States of which vessels
possess the nationality and whose flags vessels
are entitled to fly, exercise primary jurisdiction
over ships. Flag State jurisdiction can be seen as
an extension of the jurisdiction of a State to their 35 1982 UNCLOS, Articles 94, 211. On this topic see P.
ships. Regardless of where it is operating, a ship Birnie, A. Boyle, C. Redgwell, International Law and the
Environment, Oxford University Press 2009, pp. 400-405.
must therefore comply with the laws of their own
36 1982 UNCLOS, Article 92
flag. However, a Flag State’s jurisdiction is exclu- 37 The Permanent Court of International Justice, in the Lotus
sive when its vessel is sailing in the Flag State’s Case (PCJ, 1927, Ser. A, No 10, 169), referred to the principle
own waters. Flag States are responsible for regu- that no State may exercise any kind of jurisdiction over
lating safety at sea, preventing collisions, manning foreign vessels on the high seas, meaning only that foreign
vessels could not be arrested or detained while on the high
seas, not that regulations could not be enforced by other
34 See The law of the sea: obligations of states parties under States once a ship had voluntarily entered port.
the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea and 38 See Ho-Sam Bang, Port State Jurisdiction and Article 218
complementary instruments, United Nations Publications, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Journal of
2004, pp. 35-41. Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 40, No. 2, April 2009.

60 Annex B.

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 60 11/26/10 11:44:10 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Going back to Coastal State jurisdiction, UNCLOS Concerning marine pollution from ships, UNCLOS
sets three core limitations to this power. Article 211 strengthens Coastal States’ authority:
in the exercise of their sovereignty within their
• Under Article 94.5 “each State is required to territorial sea, Coastal States may adopt laws and
conform to generally accepted international regulations for the prevention, reduction and con-
regulations, procedures and practices and to trol of pollution, provided that these do not hamper
take any steps which maybe necessary to se- the innocent passage of foreign vessels. They may
cure their observance”. include the EEZ in these measures, provided they
conform to generally accepted international rules
• Under Article 227, States shall not adopt any and standards.
measure which could create discrimination in
form or in fact against vessels of any other States exercise Port State jurisdiction over the
State. ships calling at their ports or inland waters. Arti-
cle 218 stipulates that “when a vessel is voluntarily
• In their territorial sea, the sovereignty of the within a port or at the off-shore terminal of a State,
Coastal State is subject to the right of inno- that State may undertake investigations and, where
cent passage by foreign ships: Coastal States the evidence so warrants, institute proceedings in
are required by UNCLOS Art 24 not to hamper respect of any discharge from that vessel outside
the innocent passage of foreign ships through the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive
their territorial sea. economic zone of that State in violation of applica-
ble international rules and standards established
The right of innocent passage represents a corner- through the competent international organization
stone of the international Law of the Sea: under or general diplomatic conference”41. In order to
Articles 18 and 19, ships are deemed to be pass- prevent damage to the marine environment by sub-
ing when they simply navigate through territorial standard ships, according to Article 219 Port States
waters without “entering internal waters or calling can also take administrative measures to prevent
at a roadstead or port facility”39, and their passage vessels from sailing, allowing them to proceed only
is considered to be innocent when it is not “preju- as far as the nearest repair yard or upon removal of
dicial to the peace, good order or security of the the causes of the violation.
Coastal State”.

However, according to UNCLOS Article 21, Coastal

States have specific powers to adopt laws and reg-
ulations which limit the right of innocent passage
through their territorial sea in conformity with in-
ternational laws. Such powers do not exceed their
territorial sea, and States may adopt laws and regu-
lations only in respect of Article 21.1 conditions. For
example, States may adopt laws and regulations to
regulate maritime traffic, protect navigational aids,
cables and pipelines, conserve living resources and
protect the environment generally, prevent, reduce
or control pollution, and prevent the infringement
of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws40.

39 1982 UNCLOS, Article 18.1 (a). Article 18.2 also states that
passage should be continuous and expeditious, which
includes stopping and anchoring which is incidental to
ordinary navigation or necessary due to unpredictable
distress.
40 However, 1982 UNCLOS Article 21 specifically states that
the legislation of Coastal States “shall not apply to the
design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign 41 As has already been mentioned, Port State jurisdiction can
ships, unless they are giving effect to generally accepted be limited by Flag State jurisdiction when discharges have
international rules or standards”. occurred on the high seas. See footnote n. 4.

Annex B. 61

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 61 11/26/10 11:44:11 AM

 JRC Reference Report

Box 1: The maritime regulatory system

The maritime regulatory system showing the role of the 166 maritime states (Stopford, 2009). Figure
16.1, page 657. By courtesy of Cengage Learning EMEA Ltd, @2009Martin Stopford.

The maritime regulatory system does not have a supreme legislative body that makes a single set of
international laws. Currently the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) sets
a broad framework including the core principles and rules of the International Law of the Sea, whilst
the task of setting and issuing specific regulations consistent with UNCLOS is delegated to two UN
agencies, namely the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Labour
Organization (ILO). The latter is responsible for the laws governing people working on board vessels
while the IMO’s main remit includes safety, environmental concerns, legal matters, technical
cooperation, maritime security and the efficiency of shipping. At present, 166 countries worldwide are
involved in the shipping sector, which are members of the IMO and have to enact its conventions. The
IMO’s governing body is the Assembly. It gathers every two years and elects a Council, consisting of 32
member states, which acts as a governing body in between its meetings. The IMO structure includes
five technical and legal committees: Maritime Safety, Marine Environment Protection, Technical Co-
operation, Legal and Facilitation. The IMO started operating in 1958 mainly with the aim of drafting
conventions (especially to cover safety, pollution prevention, liability and compensation). However,
from 1981 the Assembly decided (Resolution A500 XII) to focus the IMO’s efforts not only on drafting
but also on the effective implementation of the conventions. In fact, the level of effectiveness of
maritime conventions depends mostly on the percentage of countries that actually decide to enact
them, and whether they are accepted by countries whose combined merchant fleets correspond to
99% of the world total.

62 Annex B.

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 62 11/26/10 11:44:13 AM

 JRC Reference Report

These provisions were issued following the so Within this framework, the International Law of the
called “Port State control” movement which arose Sea finds its highest authority in the International
within the international community to limit the Maritime Organization (IMO), which is a body of
registration of ships under flags of convenience the United Nations appointed to set international
in order to avoid enforcing international maritime standards for safety and pollution. It consists of
regulations42. To get a complete picture, the above- representatives from 152 major maritime nations,
mentioned articles should be read together with the including the US. The purpose of the IMO’s agree-
1982 Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), ment is to set internationally accepted common
in which 14 European States agreed to cooperate standards for Flag States and Coastal States, and
in order to increase the standards of ships visiting to reduce the threat to the marine environment
their ports and waters and to restrict or even ban posed by maritime accidents or discharge of pollut-
ships that do not comply with international conven- ants and invasive species. Therefore, the IMO could
tions that set standards on safety and pollution43. be seen as the main regulatory and supervisory au-
Such a MoU has been signed on a regional basis thority concerning maritime law46
to establish a high degree of control over such ves-
sels. The Paris MoU, as well as other similar agree-
ments in other regions of the world44, sets out that
authorities are entitled to carry out inspections on
foreign vessels and their documents to ensure their
compliance with the abovementioned Conventions,
and to detain non-complying ships until all detect-
ed deficiencies have been rectified45.

42 See Martin Stopford, Maritime Economics, Taylor & Francis,

2009, pp.686-7.
43 Ibidem. The Port State control movement started in 1978
when eight European States around the North Sea agreed
informally to inspect ships entering their internal waters
and to share information about possible deficiencies.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of International
Conventions that set standards on safety and pollution:
International Convention on Load Lines 1966 and Protocol
of 1988; International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea 1974 and Protocols of 1978 and 1988; International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978; Merchant Shipping
(Minimum Standards) Convention 1976 and Protocol of
1996; International Convention on the Control of Harmful
Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships 2001.
44 In particular Asia Pacific (Tokyo MoU), the Caribbean, Black
Sea and Indian Ocean.
45 Under the Paris MoU, each participating Party’s
administration should inspect at least 25% of foreign
vessels calling at its ports annually. This means that
every year roughly 14,000 vessels sailing to Europe are
inspected to ensure compliance with MARPOL. For further
information on this topic see Birnie, P., Boyle, A., Redgwell, 46 See Copeland, C. (2008). CRS Report for Congress, Cruise
C. (2009). International Law and the Environment, Oxford Ship Control: Background, Laws and Regulation and Key
University Press, p. 407. Issues, pp. 7-22.

Annex B. 63

JRC_M_EN_Dsg1_T3_26nov10.indd 63 11/26/10 11:44:14 AM

[Link] 3 29.11.2010 11:14
 European Commission

EUR 24602 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Title: Regulating air emissions from ships: the state of the art on methodologies, technologies and policy options

Authors: Apollonia Miola, Biagio Ciuffo, Emiliano Giovine, Marleen Marra

Cover photos: JRC archive and courtesy of Mr Balzani Loov Jacob

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2010 – 68 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm
EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1018-5593
ISBN 978-92-79-17733-0
Catalogue number LB-NA-24602-EN-C
doi 10.2788/4171

Abstract
In recent years public concerns regarding the environmental impacts of maritime transport have increased. This is because maritime trans-
port is the fifth largest contributor to air pollution and carbon emissions, and the growth rate of trade makes the problem even more press-
ing. However, considerable environmental improvements can be obtained by changing shipping practices. Current policy actions targeting
issues such as emissions relate mainly to the quality of fuel used and to the available technological options. Market based instruments such
as emissions trading are under discussion at international level within the IMO. Furthermore, the inclusion of the maritime transport sector
within the EU Emission Trading Scheme is on the agenda of the EU strategy to address GHGs. The complexity of air pollution and climate
change policies for the international maritime transport sector calls for a wide range of considerations to be taken into account requiring
policymakers: 1) to set binding long-term emission reduction goals, 2) to take action in a flexible manner, 3) to ensure knowledge and tech-
nology sharing of innovative practices, and 4) transparency, administrative feasibility. This Reference Report summarises the main findings
of a research activity carried out over several years and provides a reference framework of the analytical tools for regulating air emissions
from ships. It sketches the ‘state of the art’ with regard to the main methodological aspects of designing policy measures to regulate air
emissions from maritime transport. These are: identification of the impacts; estimation of emissions, and identification and selection of
technological and policy options to abate air emissions from ships. The overall aim of this Report is to provide analytical tools to help define a
policy strategy to regulate air emissions from ships, by providing various insights into how to design and apply policy efficient and equitable
instruments.

[Link] 3 29.11.2010 10:59

 The mission of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical sup-
port for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of European Union policies. As a
service of the European Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for

LB-NA-24602-EN-C
the Union. Close to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while
being independent of special interests, whether private or national.

[Link] 4 29.11.2010 10:59

View publication stats