A study led by CE Delft and UMAS, funded by the European Commission, analyzes potential short-term measures listed in the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) initial strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions from ships.
The report presents two policies to further improve the EEDI. The first is to bring forward the implementation date of Phase 3 of the EEDI from 2025 to 2022 and introduce a fourth phase in 2027.
The second is a policy to apply the EEDI to current ships. According to this policy, each vessel must have an attained measure of its design efficiency, similar to the EEDI for new ships, but potentially calculated on the basis of existing documentation. A target would be set, e.g. 10%, 20% or 30% above the applicable reference line, and within a certain timeframe, ships must meet the new standard through retrofits of energy technologies or reducing engine power.
Improvement of the SEEMP
There are three options to further improve the SEEMP.
Firstly, the SEEMP could be aligned with other energy efficiency management plans by requiring companies to set a goal for the energy efficiency of a ship. Namely, a shipping company would need to adopt an energy efficiency metric which it considers to represent the efficiency of the ship well and set a target. Additionally, progress towards the target would need to be monitored and the target would need to be updated regularly. SEEMPs would have a limited validity in order to make sure that targets will indeed be updated.
[smlsubform prepend=”GET THE SAFETY4SEA IN YOUR INBOX!” showname=false emailtxt=”” emailholder=”Enter your email address” showsubmit=true submittxt=”Submit” jsthanks=false thankyou=”Thank you for subscribing to our mailing list”]
Secondly, the SEEMP could mandate ships to regularly establish a speed-fuel curve after a standardised method. This could enable the communication on efficiency between ship owners and charterers and help reduce the split incentive.
Thirdly, requiring vessels to install cost-effective technologies. This would change the nature of the SEEMP from a management plan that has to be developed on the basis of guidelines into a regulation that requires ships to change their design efficiency. Specifically, a group of experts would create a list of technologies that are generally cost-effective to implement. Examples of such technologies could be advanced hull coatings, propeller upgrades like ducts or counter-rotating propellers. Ships will have to apply these technologies at their next drydocking, unless they can prove to their administration that the technology is not cost-effective for the specific ship.
Operational efficiency standards
This measure would include that ships monitor their operational efficiency using an indicator that needs to be agreed by the IMO. The IMO would also set reference lines and targets for ships. Ships must then meet the applicable operational efficiency target.
Fleet Improvement Programme
Today’s fleet improvement programme would mandate ships to set aside a certain amount of money each year, regarding the fuel consumption of the ship. This money would need to be invested in Energy Efficiency Bonds, which can only be used to purchase energy efficiency technologies for ships. Shipping companies would be allowed to convert the Bonds for any ship, and would have an incentive to invest it in improving the ship for which it is most cost-effective.
Speed limitation
This regulation would introduce a ship-type and size specific maximum speed which ships would not be allowed to surpass.
National or regional measures
What is more, the report analyzes three possible national or regional measures and focuses on how the IMO could help States or Regions to adopt them.
At first, IMO could offer a platform for developing a standard for ship-shore communication that could inform ships well in advance on the availability of pilots and berths and allow them to approach ports at an optimal speed.
Second, the IMO could offer a platform for the development of a standard for port incentive schemes.
Third, the IMO could create a framework to give incentives for the uptake of renewable fuels on short-haul routes.
Impacts of the short-term measures on emissions
The measures presented and analysed in this report can be sorted into three categories:
1. Measures that can help remove barriers to the implementation of cost-effective technologies or operational practices:
- Strengthening the SEEMP– mandatory goal-setting;
- Strengthening the SEEMP – mandatory periodic efficiency assessment;
- Develop a standard for ship-shore communication for voluntary use;
- Develop a standard for port incentive schemes for voluntary use;
- Create a framework for incentivising the uptake of renewable fuels.
2. Measures that mandate ships to improve their technical or design efficiency:
- Strengthening the EEDI for new ships;
- Applying the EEDI to existing ships;
- Strengthening the SEEMP – mandatory retrofits of cost-effective technologies;
- Existing fleet improvement programme.
3. Measures that mandate operational carbon intensity improvements:
- Setting mandatory operational efficiency standards;
- Speed regulation.
The first category has a limited impact on emissions because the many cost-effective measures will be used anyway over time in most Business as Usual (BAU) scenarios and because some obstacles will remain. Despite the fact that the emission reductions vary per measure, they are typically a few percent. These measures cannot ensure that the shipping sector meets the 2030 level of ambition of the IMO GHG Strategy, which is to improve the CO2 intensity of maritime transport by at least 40% relative to 2008.
The second category of measures has a slightly larger impact on emissions because they can also require the adoption of measures that are not cost-effective from a private perspective. The measure that applies only to new vessels has a limited impact on emissions by 2030, but the impact will increase in the future. Nonetheless, the measures that apply to the existing fleet can have larger impacts.
Moreover, measures that exclusively incentivise improvements in technical/design efficiency show a risk of a rebound effect. That means that savings in technical efficiency are reduced because of an economic incentive created to operate at higher speeds. The results suggest that the rebound effect could nearly halve the benefit of CO2 emissions reduction gained from the technical efficiency improvements. These measures by themselves cannot ensure that the shipping sector meets the 2030 level of ambition.
The third category of measures has the highest impact on emissions because they apply to all ships, can ensure that ship owners must meet a certain efficiency target, and because they give incentives for speed reduction, which is the measure that has the greatest potential to reduce emissions, the report claims. These measures can meet or surpass the lowest level of ambition for 2030.
The operational efficiency can be calculated annually for individual ships on the basis of data available within shipping companies and reported to the Flag State in the IMO Data Collection System. Average annual speeds can also be calculated from the Data Collection System. The difference between the measures is that the definition of the average annual speed is straightforward, while there is no agreement yet on what a suitable operational efficiency indicator would be.
Both speed limits and operational efficiency standards will require most ships to decrease their speed if the 2030 CO2-intensity ambition is to be met.
There is a difference, however. At equivalent CO2 reduction outcomes, operational efficiency standards allow ships more ways to comply than to reduce speed: improving the design efficiency, switching fuels, improving the management or logistics of the ship, et cetera. As a consequence, the resulting speed in 2030 will be somewhat higher than under equivalent speed reduction measures. Table 1 summarises the projected impact of the measures on GHG emissions.
the report concludes.
See further information in the PDF herebelow
