If someone wanted to paint a picture of the disfunctions and failure of multilateralism in preventing a climatic disaster, they would find a target-rich environment in the global efforts to control emissions for international shipping and aviation.
Contrary to popular misconception, these emissions were not left out of the Paris Agreement. In fact, emissions from international transport are an integral part of Paris climate and emissions goals. So they must be fully included in the Global Stocktake, Article 6, and all other relevant provisions of the Paris Agreement.
What makes international shipping and aviation emissions distinctive is that they occur on trips between countries and often outside national boundaries, and for this reason have not, in most cases, been included in national targets or NDCs.
Such emissions are the focus of processes under other UN bodies – International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for aviation and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for shipping. But until now, these bodies have failed to align emissions with the Paris goals – especially to their fair share of global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.
Rather than setting an example for other sectors and putting in place measures to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve full decarbonization before mid-century, ICAO and the IMO have produced disappointing results. They have implemented measures that will allow absolute emissions to grow beyond 2030, and in the case of shipping, reduce by only 50% by 2050.
To add insult to injury, since 2018, the SBSTA discussions on bunker fuels hasn’t even been able to approve their standard stock language welcoming the IMO and ICAO reports. Instead the sessions failed to agree on any outcome. The result was Rule 16 – an admission of failure. It is, to say the least, ironic that those countries that blocked the outcome recognizing the dialogue between the UN Bodies are the same ones that wax poetic in IMO and ICAO about the need to import the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibility.
This coming week will be a test of multilateralism for these emissions, which together total around 5% of global emissions – well above those of Germany.
The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee meets this week, overlapping with our SBs here in Bonn. It will formally kick off consideration of regulatory and carbon pricing measures for the mid- and long-term. At the same time, it will start considering the revision of its initial GHG Strategy adopted in 2018, with the woefully inadequate 50% reduction target for 2050 and correspondingly weak 2030 targets.
If Parties want to show that they are taking these emissions seriously, they must adopt a substantive outcome on the SBSTA item on bunker fuels here in Bonn, and signal that they expect ICAO and IMO to adopt measures aligned with the 1.5°C warming limit. The IMO must approve a process for consideration of rigorous regulatory measures like a fuel standard and also move towards carbon pricing at the level of well above US $100 per tonne to be agreed and implemented by the middle of this decade.