• Save
SEEMP survey
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

SEEMP survey

on

  • 713 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
713
Views on SlideShare
713
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

SEEMP survey SEEMP survey Presentation Transcript

  • Results of NAPA Group’s SurveyShip Owners, Operators and Charterers and their readiness for 2013 IMO Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) legislation Prepared by BLUE Communications October 2012
  • Respondent DemographicsAsia Europe Middle East North America 1-5 5-15 15-30 30-60 60+ 20% 11% 27% 29% 51 usable responses from Number of16%8% Country relevant companies were Vessels received, this page shows the Responsible For types, size and location of 20% 24% 45% companies as well as the job titles of specific individuals who contributed. 6%4% 6% 19% 10% Organisation 8%35% Type 54% Job Role Other 13% Ship Owner Superintendent Engineer/Master 38% 6% 2% Owner, Manager & Charterer Technical Management Ship Manager Ship & Fleet Management Owner & Manager HSQE/Environmental Manager Cherterer Director, Managing Director other Exec Management
  • SEEMP and The Industry 81% of respondent were confident in their understanding of SEEMP legislation European respondents were 6 times more likely to lack confidence in their own or their companies’ understanding than Asian respondents “It is not a gutsy regulation and there is no requirement for improvements.” “Absolutely needed!” “Good regulation” “One more booklet on the shelf” “The regulation is needed to make ship owners and charterers more responsible to society.” “Long Overdue” “Too prone to copy/paste” RESPONDENT COMMENT “One of the best practices” “Good but too vague” “A step to a more sustainable world” Some superintendents, masters and engineers reported that they didn’t know what theirorganisation’s plan for implementing SEEMP - some companies may need to communicate compliance decisions better if they have already made decisionsUnderstanding of SEEMP did not seem to vary by job roles. Confidence, or lack thereof, was experienced by Environmental Managers as frequently as engineers and masters.
  • Prepared for SEEMP 79% of companies have their SEEMP plans in placeRESPONDENT INDICATIONS KEY INSIGHTS BASED ON Asia has the lowest levels of preparation - only 69% North America was the most prepared at 89% The biggest factor in preparation was company size 95% of those responsible for 30+ vessels already had a plan with remaining 5% in final stages 43% of the smaller companies (5-15 vessels) had no plan in place Asia did not have any perceived information gap around SEEMP, with 75% of those that were unprepared indicating that this was down to careful consideration of options The need for more information made up 67% of respondent answers as to why they were unprepared in Europe Not a single respondent indicated that SEEMP compliance was not a priority for their organisation; neither did any respondent indicate a feeling that their organisation had plenty of time left to devise and implement their plans.
  • SEEMP processes in use 14% No one method has a majority over what the 5% 36% industry will be using to implement SEEMP But size matters, the largest companies are overwhelmingly choosing electronic solutions 45% with smaller companies choosing paper Paper Electronic Unsure Paper & Electronic SEEMP method chosen by number of vessels: 0-5 5-15 15-30 30-60 60+ 25% 8% 15%33% 33% 33% 15% 42% 50% 67% 67% 17% 33% 62%
  • The reason behind the choice Electronic SEEMP Paper SEEMP “Reduce the reporting burden on the seafarer” “Simple” “Usual format for plans on board”“Fast, reliable, cost effective and ecology friendly” “Easy to distribute and update” “Cheapest” “Cost effective” “Convenience and the cost” “Ease of record keeping” “Reduces use of paper” “They do not have web access” “Easier to handle hard copies until such time as we are sure about or goals “Compliment current Energy Management System” and KPI” Greater efficiency improvements Lack of web/IT infrastructure Complement current systems Stopgap to electronic system Environmental reasons Ease of use/operation Usual approach Crew Welfare Cost Cost Ease Although 15-20% savings are available through electronic SEEMP 60% of respondents were not aware of this potential benefit Of those who did not yet have a plan in place, 70% of individuals felt that electronic SEEMP was the best option.
  • The knowledge disconnect One of the most vital findings of this survey was the levels of knowledge of the savings achievable with electronic SEEMP solutions and how they correlate with the decision to use electronic systems - and therefore by vessel size. In fact the numbers of those implementing electronically overtakes those that are aware of the savings benefits of electronic implementation. Implementing electronic SEEMP Aware of possible savings0-5 5-15 15-30 30-60 60+ When we look at the answers given by those implementing SEEMP electronically we can see that the vast majority made their decision based on current systems in place and ease. This means they may have been unaware of the potential savings they could achieve when making their decision on SEEMP implementation, a hypothesis corroborated by the data showing that of those implementing electronic SEEMP there is a significant percentage that are unaware of the benefits.
  • Conclusions & key findingsSmall owners need better and more information to help them implement an effective SEEMP.SEEMP is widely seen as an opportunity to be exploited rather than a burden.More respondents were ready for SEEMP legislation than not. Owners, operators andcharterers have clearly been putting in the time, research and preparatory work to ensure that theywill be compliant with IMO regulation.Asian owners and operators were confident in their understanding of what SEEMP required ofthem but are on the whole taking a much more considered and researched approach to whatthey require from SEEMP.There is a clear correlation between size and method of compliance. The fewer vesselsmanaged by a respondent company, the more likely they were to be implementing SEEMP on paper.Electronic SEEMP is the majority choice for the largest companies.Those choosing paper are doing so because it is easy, cheap or is the path of least resistancebut they are unlikely to be aware of the saving benefits possible through electronic SEEMP.Increased efficiency improvements were identified along with the benefits to crew welfare asreasons for choosing electronic SEEMP by those who weren’t using existing electronic systems.A significant motivator was electronic solutions as a step towards paperless systems, as aCSR benefit in its own right.
  • Many thanks to all who took part NAPA Group Tammasaarenkatu 3 FI-00180 Helsinki Finland Phone +358 9 22 813 1