Who is responsible for international shipping and aviation pollution?

One more chance: including shipping and aviation emissions in upcoming Paris climate plans

Briefing

Summary 

  • Individual countries have a responsibility under the Paris Agreement and other international conventions to account for, and address, international shipping and aviation emissions. 

  • There are a number of possible ways to allocate international shipping and aviation emissions to states. The fairest, for shipping emissions, is to regulate half of emissions from ships arriving and leaving national ports. For aviation emissions, the fairest option is to regulate all emissions for departing flights.

  • States should take action in their upcoming Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) which are due early 2025. They should also account for these emissions in national climate budgets, then reduce them in line with national legislation and regulation. 

Who is responsible for shipping and aviation pollution?

Emissions from the shipping and aviation sectors are a significant contributor to global warming. However, the international nature of these industries has led some to claim that no individual countries have responsibility for cleaning up the emissions from ships and planes that travel between two different countries. 

In recent years, a number of developments have made it more important to clarify which countries are responsible. First of all, the Paris Agreement of 2015 was a landmark event in international climate governance. It works on the basis of each state taking ‘economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets’ in line with the global temperature goal. 

Secondly, industry lobbies have argued that the sectors escape the Paris Agreement because the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) - rather than any individual state - are responsible for international shipping and aviation emissions. Not only is this a misrepresentation of the Paris Agreement, but both the IMO and ICAO have consistently failed in the past two decades to put in place enforceable measures to reduce emissions.

Lastly, courts are increasingly turning their attention towards obligations of states for emissions arising outside of national borders. The advisory opinion on climate change and the ocean issued by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea earlier this year specifically addressed states’ obligations to tackle emissions from shipping and aviation, including individual actions which are complementary to global efforts.   

Clarifying how states allocate shipping and aviation emissions is therefore hugely important for national and international climate efforts, an issue which was also raised during the process of the global stocktake of the Paris Agreement in 2023.

What are the different ways of allocating shipping and aviation emissions to countries?

There are a number of proposed and accepted methods to allocate shipping and aviation  emissions to national jurisdictions. Way back in 1994, the UNFCCC gathered to discuss approaches to allocate shipping and aviation emissions. 6 methods were considered:

  1. Allocation of emissions from the use of bunker fuels to the country in which the bunker fuel is sold;

  2. Allocation of emissions from the use of bunker fuels to the country in which the bunker fuel is sold, but listing these in separate accounts;

  3. Allocation of emissions from the use of bunker fuels according to the nationality of the transporting company;

  4. Allocation of emissions from the use of bunker fuels to the country where a ship or aircraft is registered;

  5. Allocation of emissions from the use of bunker fuels to the country of destination of cargo or passenger;

  6. Allocation of emissions from the use of bunker fuels to the country of origin of cargo or passengers.

At that time, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advised that option 2 was taken, but “[recognized] that a procedure for allocating these emissions will be agreed upon in the future.” Since that meeting, states have consistently postponed discussion of these methodologies.

What is the most sensible way to allocate shipping and aviation emissions?

The European Commission regulates both shipping and aviation emissions on a per-trip basis, although it accounts differently for each sector in different legislation. 

In shipping, the European Union (EU)’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) regulates all voyages between EU ports and half of the emissions from ports between EU and non-EU ports (EEA). This method reflects most fairly the emissions related to its maritime trade and, as the Commission argues, addresses the global equity issue of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities’, because this method doesn’t put an unequal burden on cargo exports over imports, or the contrary (a mixture of option 5 and 6 as identified by the UNFCCC above). 

In aviation, the EU’s ReFuel Aviation Regulation regulates the energy used in flights departing European airports. This approach corresponds to Option 6, and in practice is similar to Option 1 given that airlines often bunker fuel needed for each flight in the departing airport. 

What other countries are acting?

The EU is not the only entity that has proposed to take responsibility for its shipping and aviation emissions.

  • In 2024, the Turkish Parliament voted to regulate shipping emissions under the ETS the country is developing. The law will follow the EU’s template, so it is most likely that regulation will also be on a voyage basis. 

  • Switzerland has included international shipping and aviation emissions in its 2050 net zero target under its climate framework law. They will be taken into account on the basis of the emissions from fuels refuelled in Switzerland for international flights and voyages.

  • The UK has, since 2021, included international shipping and aviation emissions in its national climate budget plans. It has done this on the basis of emissions related to the maritime and aviation fuels sold in its territory. This does not reflect the actual maritime and aviation activity in the UK as accurately as the per voyage basis, but is nonetheless an important recognition that nations should take action on international transport emissions. 

  • In 2024, Aotearoa New Zealand launched a public consultation on including international shipping and aviation in its climate law’s 2050 net zero target. 

  • Various proposals in the United States Congress have suggested regulating international shipping emissions, most recently the Clean Shipping Act of 2023 which proposed to cover all emissions from incoming voyages. 

  • China currently regulates all emissions from domestic shipping under an emissions trading system and there have been suggestions that it may extend this in future to international voyages.

How does regional action impact global decarbonisation?

Some parts of industry have repeatedly argued against allocating and addressing international transport emissions at national/regional level.  They argue that the emissions are distributed internationally, so only a global regulator should address these emissions. 

While shipping emissions are indeed not concentrated in any one country or region, industry stakeholders  ignore the reality of shipping that global trade is concentrated in a few regional centres, namely Europe, the USA and China. T&E found in 2022 that 84% of the global shipping fleet calls in Europe, the USA and China in a given year, meaning that any regional measures can have extensive impact. Moreover, T&E also found that EU reporting rules for ships have impacted 60% of the global fleet still in operation since introduction in 2017.

In aviation, emissions are not only concentrated in certain regions, but a small number of frequent flyers are responsible for the lion’s share of global aviation emissions. Policy action to reduce emissions in the Global North and to reduce flying from the most frequent flyers would therefore have a significant impact on total aviation emissions. 

The evidence is therefore clear that national and regional recognition for shipping and aviation emissions - and laws to decarbonise the industry - are essential to decarbonisation.

This briefing has been prepared together with Transport & Environment.