GOVERNANCE OF SUSTAINABLE MARINE TRANSPORT
BY DIVYA, BC0170017
CHAPTER NO. 1 INTRODUCTION
Maritime transportation and shipping are one of the oldest multinational businesses and is
essential part of global economy. Even though, it has a high importance over last few decades it
was practically ignored in economy research and international policies. The cornerstone of
world trade is maritime transit. Ships transport commodities to all parts of the globe 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year.1 With the planned expansion in global commerce in the next years, millions
around the world are likely to be pulled out of poverty because of greater access to essential
resources, goods, and products. As a result, international commerce and marine transportation
are important to stimulating the economy and spreading wealth over the globe, serving both a
social and economic role. Furthermore, marine transportation will be essential in a future global
economy since it is the most ecologically friendly means of mass transportation, including both
terms of energy conservation and preventing pollution.2
It also serves as a unique venue for collaboration among regional, international and
government organizations, industry players, and a wide range of other marine stakeholders. The
Marine Transport System is vital to modern civilization, and its flawless functioning benefits
everyone. Furthermore, modern civilization has adjusted a cargo handling process that is
relatively economical, yet dependable and easy.
The Marine Transport System is global in scope, serving world trade by linking markets in
different regions of the globe and transporting 90% of cargo and goods to all parts of the globe at
a cheap cost when compared to the value of the items being carried. 3 It benefits to a well and
detailed global regulatory system for safe and environmentally friendly maritime transportation,
which delivers by far the healthiest, least causing pollution service for the transport systems of
1
Jane lister, Green Shipping: Governing sustainable Maritime Transport, 2014 University of Durham and John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Last Assessed on 16 May 2022), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267454408.
2
Abbott, K. W. (2012) ‘The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change’, Environment & Planning C:
Government & Policy, 30(4), 571–590.
3
E Gold, Maritime Transport: The Evolution of International Marine Policy and Shipping Law, Lexington Books,
1981.
cargo vessels, as well as manufacturing characters decided to commit to environmental
regulation.
The growth of private governance systems in the shipping industry is traced in this research
paper, which includes private governance theory to determine crucial concerns regarding
international policy consequences. The key point is twofold in light of a blocked and slow global
regulatory procedure.
The growth of private governance systems in the maritime industry is traced in this research
paper, which uses private governing theory to identify crucial concerns concerning global policy
consequences. The key point is dual fold considering a blocked and slow global regulatory
procedure. This research paper follows the development of private governance structures in the
maritime sector, using private governing theory to identify critical issues about global policy
ramifications. In view of a stalled and delayed international legislative framework, the crucial
argument is dual fold. As the research paper ends, the IMO's strategy to private governing
arrangements will eventually include a this double change, not only to enable and help expand
the reach of certain activities, but also to monitor their sustainable environmental efficacy.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of this research paper are as follows-:
To analyze the impact of marine transport on the environment.
To investigate the measures taken for environmental protection.
To investigate possible use of sustainable marine transportation.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This research paper will discuss the questions as follows-:
What is the impact of usage of marine transport on the environment?
What are measures taken for sustainable marine transport and drawbacks of existing
structure?
What measures to be taken to improve the sustainability of marine transport?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In pursuing the research on this chosen topic, the researcher intent to employ the concept of
Doctrinal research with data analysis. The research paper will be a literary survey. The major
methodology of the research is analytical method along with the support of the empirical and
descriptive method.
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
The research outcome is that, while marine policy is multidimensional but has a massive
international component, domestic climate change mitigation and adaptation plans are projected
to play an increasingly important role in the development of marine trade and transportation in
the next decade.
LIMITATION
Due to paucity of time and words the present research paper will only include the preliminary
problems relates to marine transport and sustainability of marine transport. This is not extensive
research so only 2-3 major problems related to marine transportation will be covered.
CHAPTER NO. 2- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MARINE TRANSPORTATION
Vessels release nitrogen and sulphur oxides, particulate pollution, and co2 because of the oil which
is used power these cargo vessels. Even though container ships are energy, they use liquid fuel,
which would be a more carbon-intensive energy.4 These co2 emission account for about 3% of total
world greenhouse gases, and if nothing is done, they are expected to rise to 20 percentage points of
emissions globally by 2050.5 Between 2007 and 2012, sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions accounted
for 15% and 13% of total worldwide man-made pollutants, accordingly.6
“Despite the alarming numbers, several regulations have been implemented to mitigate the
detrimental effects. Firstly, the United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO) has
committed to decrease marine emissions by half by 2050, which include participation of total of 173
countries.7 But how do they intend to do this? A Sulphur cap is the first step in reducing emissions.
A Sulphur content restriction for cargo ship gasoline will take effect on January 1, 2020. The
Sulphur restriction will be reduced from 3.5 percent to 0.5 percent. 8 Although this could cost up to
4
IMO 2020- cutting Sulphur oxide emissions, (Last Assessed on 16 May
2022)https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-2020.aspx
5
Id.
6
IMO 2020, Consistent Implementation of MARPOL, ISBN 978-92-801-17189, Annex VI, 2019 Edition I666E.
7
Id.
8
Joint Industry Guidance on 0.50 percent sulphur marine fuel supply and consumption.
$30 billion, this will dramatically reduce sulphur, fine particles, and carbon pollution from cargo
transportation.9”
Ballast water, bilge water, grey water, and black water are all discharged by massive cargo vessels,
lowering quality of the water, severely impacting aquatic habitats, and increasing significant health
problems.10 Vessels dump one of those at rate that meet international and domestic guidelines, but
they still constitute a damage to the environment.
Gray water comes from shipboard showers and sinks, as well as the washing and kitchen, while
black water is waste that comprises faecal matter. Gray water from vessels must be released into the
air one miles from terrain or persons in the ocean, and three miles from such an aquaculture
leasehold. Bilge water is oil-containing waste which must be purified correctly before even being
released. Under international accords, ships must install an Oil and water Separator to keep bilge
water oil yield below 15 parts per million.11 The EPA's Clean Water Act and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Program oversees most of these, as well as a container permits
package that requires federal guidelines for regulating vessel emission. The firms listed included are
assisting providers in meeting EPA criteria and cleaning up the pollution which the boats make.12
CHAPTER NO. 3- ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE OF SUSTAINABLE MARINE
TRANSPORTATION.
IMO AND GOVERNANCE
The International Marine Organization (IMO) has been the United Nations' maritime arm, which
was created in 1948 and has been in functioning since 1958. It has the “obligation for the
safeguarding of transportation, as well as the avoidance of ship waste in the sea.” 13 An IMO
conference is typically considered in coercion once multiple of national governments have
approved it,14 but this does not pertain to countries that haven't really enacted it, and
9
Supra at 4.
10
World Maritime Day: A concept of a sustainable maritime transportation system, Sustainable Development: Imo’s
Contribution Beyond Rio-2020, International Maritime Organization, pp(Last assessed on 16 th May 2022),
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1163CONCEPT%20OF%20%20SUSTAINABLE
%20MARITIME%20TRANSPORT%20SYSTEM.pdf.
11
Id.
12
M Levinson, The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger,
Princeton University Press, 2006.
13
IMO- International Maritime Organization, (Last assessed on 16th May 2022), http://www.imo.org/.
14
Bazán Blanco, A. IMO - Historical Highlights in the Life of a UN Agency, (2004), Journal of the History of
International Law, Vol. 6 (2) at p.p. 259–283.
implementation is left to national authorities (depending as to whether the guideline appears to
apply to flag or port states), instead of the IMO, likely to result in varying levels of regulation.
Considering, shipping's major contribution to global Emissions, there are no Carbon dioxide
emission limits. The IMO has helped to Greenhouse gas emissions reduction through focusing on
vessel performance, which decreases usage of fuel and hence these emissions over all kinds. In
2011, the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
(SEEMP) were added to MARPOL, requiring select new ship to follow the EEDI and then all
vessels to follow the SEEMP.15
The IMO has really been involved in the settlement of several different environmental concerns
in the maritime industry. The environmental destruction sustained by ballast water discharge, for
instance, was known for ages before intervention was done. The initial move was to begin
investigations in the initial MARPOL 1973 treaty, following which is something the MEPC
worked in the nineties to design an appropriate strategy. The International Convention for the
Control and Management of Vessel’s Ballast Bottom sediments was ultimately adopted in 2004,
but it did not accept sufficient signatures to be approved till 2016, and so brought into force in
September 2017. This reason that the agreement did not come into force till thirteen years after it
had been adopted and 44 years after it was signed and the effort to investigate the issue
highlights the difficulties in global politics.16
The IMO's absence of Greenhouse gas objectives were critiqued, and the European Union had
previously created its own Greenhouse gas documentation requirement in 2015. Following that,
the IMO amended MARPOL Annex VI to require boats larger than 5,000 GT to keep track of
overall fuel oil use. Fedi pointed out how the IMO standard becomes less detailed than European
Union law, since it relies on proxy for transportation tasks instead of giving specifics on each
vessel’s load.17
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) stated in April 2018 that the shipping industry
has agreed to decrease emissions by 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels. Setting a goal for the
15
Jason Monios, Environmental Governance in Shipping and Ports: Sustainability and Scale Challenges, Cambridge
Press, pp. 13-29, (Last Assessed on 16 th May 2022),
file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/MoniosJ.2020.EnvironmentalGovernanceinShippingandPorts-
SustainabilityandScaleChallenges.pdf.
16
Psaraftis, H. N, Decarbonization of maritime transport: to be or not to be?, Maritime Economics & Logistics,
(2018).
17
Fedi, L, The Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Ships’ Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A European Substantial
Policy Measure towards Accurate and Transparent Carbon Dioxide Quantification, Ocean Yearbook Online, (2019),
Vol. 31 (1), p.p. 381-417.
very first time is undoubtedly a positive move, but the lack of necessary activities and the
extended period leave the door open to future delays and changes to the timeframe, as well as the
revelation that the United States was not in consensus may restrict compliance with the aim. As a
result, reaching this ambitious goal will be tough without clear and robust worldwide laws. 18
Furthermore, domestic, and international Carbon Dioxide reduction goals are based upon 1990
levels rather than 2008 levels, and the IPCC goal of limiting increase in temperature to 1.5
degrees Celsius by 2050 is sustainable and green, rather than 50% decline. The IMO's relatively
long aim is to “explore transition to a low carbon in the second half of the century,” 19 which
would be more technologically plausible, since hydrogen, for example, could become
economically viable by this same time, and it will be too soon to fulfil carbon pollution limits.
The IMO's brief period recommendations for achieving their 50 percent objective are mostly
focused on improving carrier design and management, particularly slow steamed. Alternative
energy sources aren't expected to be practical till the mid-term.20
MBMs, however, are only recognized a moderate-term solution by the IMO. What is remarkable
is that, amidst a slew of scholarly, governmental, IMO, and industrial papers on probable
reduction, there seems to be surprisingly little mention of the reality that even without objectives
and rules, no cutbacks outside minor tweaks are feasible. The major Green House Gas reductions
from maritime are “just a hope at this moment in time” given the lack of compulsory activities in
the IMO framework, the shortcomings of EEDI, and the reality that the MBM discussion is
shut.21
NATIONAL LEVEL GOVERNANCE
Shipments are mainly supervised at 2 levels: domestic (all boats are supposed to register in a
specific nation) and worldwide (specific security and environmental legislation should be
followed). Those two tiers interact regularly. Flag states, port countries, and coastline countries
are the 3 types of nations defined under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). The sovereign state is just where vessels are enrolled, whereas port states refer to a
18
Winnes, H. and et.al., Reducing GHG emissions from ships in port areas. Research in Transportation Business &
Management, (2015), Vol.17, p.p. 73-82.
19
Supra at 16.
20
Roe, M., Shipping, policy & multi-level governance, Maritime Economics & Logistics, (2007), Vol. 9 (1) at p.p.
84-103.
21
Bergqvist, R. and et. Al., Green Ports: Inland and Seaside Sustainable Transportation Strategies, Cambridge,
Elsevier, p.p.125-154.
government's authority to examine boats in its ports, and coastal areas refer to a nation's
authority over ships operating inside its maritime boundary.
Several vessels moved their nation of registry to save taxation, cut labour expenses due to
weaker labour rules in the national authorities, and profit from of the notion that all these
jurisdictions lack power to enforce compliance requirements with IMO safety and environmental
requirements. Although the flag controls pay and conditions, sailors and ships should fulfil
IMO/ILO and classifying group requirements, accordingly. Mishaps do happen and it is not
about a loss of personnel quality, but also because of work overload, poor working conditions,
and a shortage of resources and time to follow Maritime laws owing to employer expectations.
Its balance national and international policy to attain the greatest results of both the worlds.
CHAPTER NO. 4- CONCLUSION
The present marine governance model faces few important environmental issues. Legislators and
individuals at all stages will need to come up with ideas, activities, and, more importantly, bold
replies.
Dealing with climate change is an inevitable topic. As we've seen, meeting the IMO's 50%
decrease in emissions objective by 2050 might be attainable through a mix of ultra-slow
steaming, a worldwide transition to LNG, and ship layouts that incorporate batteries and wind
power. Nonetheless, with no economically credible alternative fuel that can run shipping at its
present level, the only way to accomplish full emission reductions is to substantially restrict the
distance travelled, at least in the near run. Even after more than a decade of publicity, LNG take-
up is scarcely moving, thus meeting the 50% objective seems implausible. Furthermore, these
estimations exclude transportation growth. If marine transportation continues to grow at its
current rate, the saves will be offset by higher emission, putting the aim even farther out of reach.
We should keep the port vision in mind, especially when it comes to local pollution, which
affects many individuals who do not necessarily profit from port activities.
Zero local emissions options, such as a combination of cold ironing, LNG or battery capacity,
and slow steam in the seaport region, must become common. Even though the IMO is not the
proper level for this choice, a transnational institution like the European Union might at least
offer assistance and subsidies. Similarly, ports are dealing with the consequences of climate
change. Significant choices will have to be made in the future to protect port areas from
increasing sea level to rise and high tides, but research shows that there is a worrisome inertia
among governmental scales.
These depending on the prevailing unprecedented concerns about the viability of form locations,
coastal plain retreat, and a slew of global breakdowns ranging from water shortages and poor
harvests to relocation and war, all of which will drastically alter production level, intake, and
thus shipping activities. Addressing with these difficulties will be done to a considerable part at
the national scale, through legislation to decarbonize, promote renewables, and prepare for the
migration of millions of people and companies away from vulnerable coastal regions.
SUGGESTIONS
The few suggestions for improvement in marine transportation are as follows:
- One of several primary management methods for preventing the environmental
consequences of maritime transportation is to regulate the shipping sector through law.
Environmental protection laws are linked to the operation and control of port
infrastructure and maritime transportation firms.
- To improve environmental responsibility, technological solutions are needed. According
to some analysts, the shipping sector is a pioneer in green tech, with enormous potential
to incorporate sustainable technology.
- Domestic and international programmers aid in reducing the environmental impact of
maritime transport. The ESPO's efforts are a global initiative that has helped numerous
European port administrations in improving their environment. ESPO has a significant
impact on assisting shipping businesses in becoming more ecological in European
countries.
- Different management method for encouraging ship owners to pursue sustainable and
green marine transport is to reduce port dues for vessels and/or award green ships. A port
authority may decrease port charges or reward ships under the green incentive scheme if
environmental standards are met.
- Another key management option is to raise knowledge about marine environmental rules,
clean technology, best environmental management practices, and current shipping
challenges throughout the world. The maritime sector must raise awareness about the
need of adopting proactive efforts to safeguard the maritime eco system and foresee
impending difficulties to remain resilient.
- There is possibility of private-sector collaboration and synergy to increase regime
effectiveness. Nevertheless, vigilance is needed here to avert policy ‘backsliding,’ in
which private leadership allows the state to unintentionally recede from duty and action.
Even though businesses will benefit from adopting above-and-beyond environmental
measures, assuming and relying on passengers and cargo to voluntarily prioritize the
environment over personal corporate entities would be unrealistic, with possibly
hazardous policy repercussions.
