New standards for sulphur content of marine fuels

Source: Europolitics

By Anne Eckstein | Monday 21 May 2012

Sulphur (SO ₂) emissions from maritime transport should be slashed by 90% by 2020, following the agreement, sealed on 15 May, in the framework of interinstitutional three-way talks (Council, Commission and Parliament). The agreement on the draft directive updating standards for the sulphur content of marine fuels ⁽¹⁾ still has to be confirmed by the member states before being endorsed in plenary by Parliament and then by the Council.

Meeting in the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper), on 16 May, certain member states and the Commission said they needed more time to study the text. Things are expected to be clearer on 22 or 23 May. If the Commission cannot give its consent, the Council will have to act by unanimity. For the Council, the issue is whether or not to accept the absolute nature of the 2020 deadline. The Commission seeks to address the problem of the division of competences in the framework of the delegated acts procedure opposite the Council’s determination to keep control over certain implementing measures.

The new directive transposes into EU law the latest provisions in this area adopted in 2008 through the Marpol Convention, under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and updates Directive 1999/32/EC on the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels, currently in force. Apart from the rules imposed by the Marpol Convention, the directive establishes obligations on passenger vessels operating outside protected areas and stricter rules for off-gas treatment as an alternative means of reducing sulphur pollution.

DRASTIC REDUCTION IN CERTAIN AREAS

The new directive lowers maximum authorised sulphur content in maritime fuels used in sensitive areas - SO_x emission control areas or SO _x ECA – like the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel from 1.5% (current level) to 0.1% from 1 January 2015, a standard already adopted by the IMO and in force. Certain member states (Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom) have already ratified this international decision and are therefore already obliged to abide by it.

The reduction in sulphur content will be more drastic in other areas, from 4.5% to 0.5% from 1 January 2020. The IMO has also set this standard but, before the deadline, plans to evaluate the situation based on the actual availability of compliant fuels, with the possibility to postpone the deadline until 2025 if need be. The EU directive will be more restrictive as the EP obtained the firm date of 2020, without any extension possible. If Coreper does not endorse this point, the EP will reject the compromise. On the other hand, if this date is recognised and consolidated, the decision will serve as a mandate and the 27 will have to defend this position in the IMO.

NO MORE EXEMPTIONS

Parliament also obtained the elimination of all exemptions granted under the 1999 directive. That text, noting that the maximum sulphur levels applicable in EU waters, ie 0.2% (applicable from 2000) and 0.1% (from 2008) for gas oils for seagoing ships, could pose technical and economic problems in certain member states, granted a derogation to Greece for its entire territory, to Spain for the Canary Islands, to France for the French overseas departments and to Portugal for Madeira and the Azores.

Parliament also maintained the possibility to grant state aid under certain conditions, although the text is worded fairly vaguely on this point, admitted the rapporteur, Satu Hassi (Greens-EFA, Finland), since the Commission (which plans to review all state aid arrangements – see Europolitics 4420) cannot provide the necessary details at this stage.

INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM

To achieve the target set by the new directive, ships will be authorised to use equivalent techniques, such as off-gas treatment systems, to replace the use of low-sulphur fuels. The Commission also proposes greater harmonisation of monitoring, reporting and sampling provisions. It is counting on phased-in implementation from 2015 to 2020 and plans to adopt the practical arrangements necessary under the delegated acts procedure.

But the day after the 15 May negotiations, although it had not raised the problem earlier, the Commission presented additional requirements in this respect (the type of measures coming under this procedure).

The Council is standing its ground and insists on keeping control over a number of implementing measures, even though, like the EP, under the procedure in question it has a right of scrutiny and opposition. This question of the division of competences between the Council and the Commission is not unique to this issue and is due, claims Hassi, to an error by the authors of the Lisbon Treaty, whose text is not precise enough. For the Commission, this is more a position in principle than a question of blocking a given text.

⁽¹⁾ COM(2011)439