TECHNICAL • MRV
DuPont in-line scrubber being hoisted aboard
he says. But the EU has ‘pre-empted’ that IMO system by adopting a regional regulation on MRV.
‘In a welcome move, the European Commission has announced it is preparing recommendations on how the EU regime might be aligned with IMO,’ he continues, ‘although this process will probably take several years during which time all ships trading with EU ports will have to comply with two differing systems.’
Emissions verification moves ahead
Emissions verification company Verifavia reports that in early March it was approved by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) as a global verifier for EU MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) services.
UKAS accreditation means Verifavia will be able to both assess monitoring plans and verify carbon emission reports under EU MRV, which comes into force next year, for ‘any ship anywhere in the world, regardless of country of ownership, flag state, or class,’ the company states.
‘We are proud to have earned this recognition by UKAS, which cements our position as the leading independent EU MRV verifier and one of the few accredited to offer both monitoring plan assessments and verification of emissions reports on a global basis,’ comments Verifavia ceo Julien Dufour.
Already active in the aviation industry, the company is a relative newcomer to the maritime sector – but is at pains to point out that it is not only maritime classification societies which are able to offer shipowners MRV services.
Since July 2015, when the EU MRV regulation was adopted, it has worked with many leading shipping names such as
84
Grimaldi, DFDS, Seaspan, Synergy and Dynacom, the company points out.
Earlier this year, Verifavia partnered with Greek classification society INSB Class to offer its MRV services to contracted customers, and it plans similar partnerships in other strategic shipping locations. The company says it is ‘committed to helping ship owners and operators around the world navigate the complexities of this new environmental regulation confidently, competitively, and smoothly.’
However, the international shipping community as a whole remains distinctly unimpressed by EU MRV, which will apply to all ships of 5,000gt or over calling EU ports.
Alignment of IMO and EU schemes Simon Bennett, director of policy and external relations at the ICS (International Chamber of Shipping, stresses that it is important to ‘align’ the separate IMO and EU CO2 verification regimes
Julien Dufour, Verifavia
Visit:
seatrade-maritime.com
‘The IMO CO2 data collection system is seen by ICS as an acceptable compromise that will provide reliable information about fuel consumption in order to inform the development of future IMO work on reducing the
Simon Bennett, ICS
sector’s emissions,’
Bennett says that among the ‘unhelpful’ differences that need to be addressed is that the verification and accreditation process developed by the EC is overly complex. ‘EU climate officials seemingly wish to ignore the tried and tested processes for statutory certification used in international shipping, instead proposing an unjustifiably large administrative burden for ship operators,’ he says.
‘The EU verification system requires the use of verifier bodies accredited by national accreditation bodies similar to those associated with the EU Emissions Trading System, rather than flag Administrations and those Recognized Organizations (primarily classification societies) authorised to work on their behalf, as per the normal methodology used for certification in accordance with IMO instruments.’
In July, IMO will finalise guidelines which, among other things, will address flag state verification of CO2 data submitted by ships, informs Bennett.
‘Hopefully there will be a compromise acceptable to all IMO Member States, so – as is already the situation – should a flag
Administration wish to authorise an RO to do CO2 data verification only, there would be nothing to prevent it from doing so, even if the RO concerned is not authorised to conduct other surveys.
‘However, the EU also needs to send an early signal that it is truly serious about taking the necessary steps to align the many other aspects of the EU regime that currently differ from the system agreed at IMO.
Seatrade Maritime Review • Quarterly Issue 2 • June 2017
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
