Andreas Chrysostomou has been at the helm of the Marine Environment Protection Committee for the past six years, during a time when the IMO committee has grown steadily more influential. The expected market-based instruments to fight emissions will bring in a new era.
It’s hard to get Andreas Chrysostomou to have an opinion. That is, as long as he’s talking from his position as chair of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). “It’s the states that make the rules. I only sum up their decisions. When I have the decision, I will tell you,” says the diplomatic Cypriot, concerning the upcoming debates on market-based alternatives to control emissions.
“I will not express my personal views,” he says. “It would be rude of me. But if you interview me tomorrow as senior surveyor of Cyprus, I will have my views,” he says with a smile.
During the last six years, Mr Chrysostomou has sought to be a consensus builder at the MEPC. “I’ve seen many meetings in IMO and many meetings in other UN agencies, and usually frustration comes when people talk but nobody listens to them,” he says.
High on the agenda for the two MEPC meetings this year is the applicability issue – concerning whether the technical and operations standards and the construction standards being discussed will apply across the board, or whether they will apply differently to developing countries. “This is one of the major problems we have,” says Mr Chrysostomou. “We also need to have in place a market-based instrument to supplement the technical and operational measures. And still there are dissenting voices that say we don’t need market-based instruments. There are people saying we want them. And those that want them have different opinions on how this measure should be. Should it be an emissions trading scheme? Should it be a compensation fund? Or a combination of the two? Then there is another proposal which is a kind of a hybrid, but unique again.”
The consensus that the MEPC is working toward may come this year. If all goes according to plan, there should be new standards in place by 2012, he says.
Reshape
“When the MEPC decides on greenhouse gas emissions from ships it will be a new era for the IMO. It will have to reshape itself, in a way. The market-based instruments will generate cash, which will be used for mitigation, adaptation, research and development for combating climate change,” says Mr Chrysostomou.
The talks are continuing at full steam now, after being put on hold in the hopes that some issues might be addressed at the climate conference in Copenhagen last year. After shipping and aviation went unmentioned in the Kyoto agreement, it was time to bring them into the field.
“We all built up our hopes,” says Mr Chrysostomou. “We hoped that Copenhagen could have given solutions to several problems we had. Unfortunately, it looked like shipping was not high on their agenda. There were other pressing issues for the environment regarding climate change. So shipping was not fully discussed, and eventually even in the accord it’s not mentioned.” But Mr Chrysostomou is able to bring some positives from the meeting. There were 20 maritime experts from different nations at the meetings who were able to discuss issues seriously, compared with only six maritime experts at the previous meeting in Poland.
“It was an experience, but it did not successfully address the shipping world, at least the way we expected it,” he admits.
“To be honest, many of the UN experts know that we are doing work already in the IMO and the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). So maybe they hope that we can do the work anyhow. Obviously, nothing changed. So definitely now we have to discuss and resolve the issues ourselves.”
Needs to show its individuality
Mr Chrysostomou is a naval engineer, and as a senior surveyor he has represented Cyprus in the International Maritime Organization since the mid-1990s. He is in charge of the maritime policy section at the Department of Merchant Shipping in Cyprus, and is based in Limassol. His background is not merely technical, he also has a master’s degree in business administration from the University of Newcastle.
“When I was elected to chair the Committee, one of my observations was that the MEPC needed to show its individuality. Most of the time, it had been highly politicised. Environmental issues have always had a political gist. I think I managed – with the help of the states and friends and everybody – to show that individuality,” he says.
Consensus based style
“Nothing is achievable unless you get the friendship and the cooperation of the colleagues in the international delegations. And I have to say we rarely come into confrontations. We might have different opinions, but we eventually find a way through, which is important,” says Mr Chrysostomou. He rarely even takes issues up for a vote – this happens perhaps only once or twice a year. It’s all based on the goal of consensus.
After the adoption of the ballast water management convention in 2004, there was a change in the Committee, with a larger share of scientists and people with an environmental background coming in. The Committee has adopted the anti-fouling convention and the recycling convention in the intervening years.
“The discussion has evolved to a much more global environmental level. The people participating now are more environmentally geared. So the MEPC now doesn’t look exactly like a stereotype maritime safety committee, if I may say so,” says Mr Chrysostomou. “I think we feel also that our Committee is actually more influential now than it used to be. Everybody talks about the hot issues of the MEPC now.
“The proposals are there. We have to evaluate them now, we have to determine their feasibility, their impact on the economies of all nations – not only on the developing nations. And of course we need to determine the impact on international trade.
Ships will become more efficient
“I believe the shipping industry has always wanted to produce more with less,” says Mr Chrysostomou, who argues that shipping is already an extremely efficient mode of transport. Still, ships can and will become even more efficient. How to go about it is a matter of many different opinions.
“You must listen. You must understand everybody’s position. If you do that I’m sure you’ll always find something that can be agreed upon. When you find that point, you start building on it. And slowly, slowly you get them working. It doesn’t work 100% of the time, but I always give it an 80% chance. If you don’t listen as a chairman, and you have your own opinions, you’re doomed,” he says.
Abatement curves are a valuable contribution
Andreas Chrysostomou sees how DNV’s cost-effective approach to emission reduction could be an important contribution.
“It is always a great pleasure to see work on reduction of GHG emissions from shipping based on experience gained,” says Mr Chrysostomou. “The abatement curves for shipping have been developed based on actual experience gained from energy efficiency studies DNV has undertaken with individual shipowners, and I am sure they will have an effective and valuable contribution to the goal of reducing the GHG emissions from ships. Many of the operational and technical measures that have been assessed are available for implementation on existing vessels today, meaning they can be implemented as soon as practicable,” he says.
Text: Kaia Means
Date: 2010-06-11