In-depth | REGULATION
in finding the necessary technological solutions”, said Mr Palomares. The index will include a number of
parameters and as long as it remains below a certain pre-set limit the vessel will meet the requirements. Tat limit has yet to be fixed, but it could be agreed upon as early as March 2010. Existing vessels and new ships would
also have to show that they are operating in an efficient manner through the implementation of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), which has also been developed and circulated for finalisation at MEPC 60. This would follow a philosophy similar to the one underpinning the International Safety Management Code. Attached to the SEEMP is guidance on
best practices, which has been developed in close cooperation with the industry and an Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) that is another formula that enables the owner/operator to gauge the effectiveness of the efficiency measures undertaken. The EEOI will not only measure the energy used for propulsion, but the entire energy consumption of the ship. Tis may well be one of the main tools to be used by flag States and port State control to monitor compliance. “All the guidelines necessary to
implement the EEDI and the SEEMP are in place as agreed at MEPC 59 and will be revisited at MEPC 60 to allow the Committee to polish them following the comments that may be received from member states and the industry”, explained Mr Palomares. All that remains to decide now is the
market based instrument that should be put in place to supplement the emission reductions achieved by the above technical and operational measures. At present there are two main streams of thought, an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), basically a cap-and-trade system and an International Contribution Fund, that would be fed by levying a charge on bunkers. “Both schemes will probably require
the establishment of an international fund to collect the revenues generated by the chosen mechanism. Te Committee has already agreed that the greater part of these revenues, provisionally estimated at several billion US dollars per year, should
28
be used for climate change mitigation and adaptation purposes in developing countries only, which in turn would be a way of satisfying the CBDR principle” said Mr Palomares. However, he pointed out that the
creation of an international fund could necessitate the adoption of a new treaty instrument to be developed by the MEPC and then administered by an appropriate intergovernmental body, since the present
“If politicians decide in
Copenhagen to uphold the IMO’s guiding principle of “equal or non- discriminatory regulation of all ships in international trade, irrespective of flag or ownership over the Kyoto’s principle of CBDR then the organisation will be able to move ahead with a raft of new regulations”
structure of the IMO Secretariat was not geared to dealing with such complex market issues. Te IMO, however, does have experience
in creating similar international funds, such as the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund in the 1990s and its subsequent Protocols. Effectively the IMO created this fund
and then a secretariat was established to run it. “The IMO gave birth to the child and then entrusted an appropriate
organisation with its nurturing,” said Mr Palomares. He points out that there could be
other solutions: the USA has devised an alternative system using the EEDI as a yardstick, which could potentially bridge the two main streams and make it acceptable. Though at the moment
Mr.Palomares admits: “the debate is rather polarised”. Mr Palomares does not accept that
the IMO has been slow to regulate, he believes that if the politicians make the decisions that will set the IMO free to regulate international shipping, as it has been doing for the past five decades, then consensus will not be difficult to find. But, he does not simply lay all the responsibility onto the politicians, he recognises that the industry has a crucial role to play, and shipowners must take the initiative in reducing emissions. A trend that is visible at present, with the shipping industry fully behind the IMO’s endeavours. “Te shipping industry has come a very
long way already, since the 1970s and 80s,” he points out. “Owners are using ships that are bigger, have better hydrodynamics and more efficient engines”. “Then”, he says, “there is the ‘low
hanging fruit’”, the simple and cost effective changes that the industry can readily make, like managing speed, sailing with optimum trim, minimising ballast trips, using last generation hull paints, and many more measures, all of which are explained in the SEEMP. Mr Palomares also points out that
a number of mainly “Nordic” owners/ operators are already applying many of these energy efficiency measures to their vessels and they are now accruing the benefits of those fuel-saving measures. “Te SEEMP will encourage companies
to consider what can be done immediately that will be of low cost, followed by other higher-priced measures, in the knowledge that the achieved reductions in fuel consumption may well pay for the implementation of the reduction measures and, at the same time, serve the climate change cause”, said Mr Palomares. In this context Copenhagen could be a
watershed for the maritime industry, but if the politicians fail to play their part the opportunity could be lost. NA
The Naval Architect November 2009
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68