Energy Efficiency Measures for Ships and Potential Barriers for Adoption

1. Energy Efficiency Measures For Ships
and
Potential Barriers for Adoption
Source: www.pinterest.com
Mohd. Hanif Dewan, IEng, IMarEng, MIMarEST (UK), MRINA(UK),
Maritime Lecturer and Consultant

2. - Hydrocarbons (HC): abt. 180 ppm
The transport sector is under considerable pressure to increase fuel efficiency. While CO2
emissions are falling in many other sectors, transport emissions are expected to rise in the future.
Shipping currently accounts for about 2.7% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, (IMO Report-
2007) but its share is expected to grow as a result of increased transportation, in combination with
difficulties in implementing effective fuel efficiency measures and
replacing fossil fuels.
The burning of fossil fuel has numerous environmental impacts. Emissions produced from the
burning of fossil fuel. The demand of marine emissions reduction has strongly increased due to
the threat of climate change and reduction of ships emission by the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO). The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) is also firmly committed to
reducing its emission.
Typical concentrations of exhaust emissions are as follows:
- Oxygen: abt. 13% ,
- Nitrogen: abt. 75.8% ppm
- Water vapor: abt. 5.35% ,
- Carbon Monoxide (CO): abt. 60 ppm
- Carbon di Oxide (CO2): abt. 5.2%
- Oxides of Sulphur (SOX): abt. 600 vppm
- Particulate matter (PM): abt. 120 mg/Nm3
- Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX): abt. 1500 vppm.
- Hydro-Carbon (HC): abt 180ppm
IMO’s Second GHG Study (2007) which published in 2009, identified that CO2 emissions from
international shipping accounted for approximately 2.7% of total anthropogenic (caused by
human activity) CO2 emissions in 2007.
Source: www.imo.org

3. If no regulatory measures were developed, CO2 emissions were projected to grow between 200%
and 300% by 2050, despite significant market-driven efficiency improvements.
Against this background, in 2011 IMO adopted a suite of technical and operational measures
comprising an energy-efficiency framework for ships, which entered into force on 1 January 2013
under Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL). Estimates (in a study carried out by Lloyd's Register and DNV for IMO) suggest that
successful implementation of this energy-efficiency frame work by 2050 could reduce shipping
CO2 emissions by up to 1.3 giga tonnes per year against the business-as-usual scenario (to put
this in context, global energy-related CO2 emissions reached 31.6 giga tonnes in 2012, according
to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in its World Energy Outlook Special Report (OECD/IEA,
2013).
In Asia, maritime transport is responsible for over 90% of all international freight movements in
volume terms and is thus the most important facilitator of the region’s participation in the global
market. The sector, and more specifically its energy efficiency, has received little attention from
governments in Asia. However, the region is striving to become more competitive in international
trade and this, together with the increasing cost of marine fuels, has put pressure on the industry
to become more fuel efficient. As fuel efficiency is inextricably linked to air emissions, measures
and policies that successfully improve energy efficiency will have positive implications for the
region’s emission levels.
Research has already been carried out in the field of alternative power sources and into technical,
operational and structural energy saving measures for shipping. However, gaps remain between
current knowledge and the implementation of energy efficiency measures by shipping companies.
As in many industries, a number of measures that would improve fuel efficiency in shipping have
yet to be implemented despite known cost efficiency. This situation is known as an energy
efficiency gap. There is also an extensive list of barriers that explain the non-adoption of
measures. Sorrell and others (2004) summarized these barriers as risk, imperfect information,
hidden costs, access to capital, split incentives and bounded rationality.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a new chapter was added to MARPOL Annex VI
on the prevention of CO2 emissions, which entered into force on 1 January 2013. An Energy
Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) value, which relates the mass of CO2
emissions per transport work to ship size, must be produced for all new ships. The EEDI of a
specific ship is compared to a reference line that dictates the maximum allowable limit. The
reference line varies by ship type. A Ship Energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) is
also required. A SEEMP should function as an operational tool to improve energy efficiency.
Goods volumes transported at sea are, however, predicted to rise, and absolute reductions in
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the industry are not expected despite the new
regulations (Bazari and Longva, 2011; Anderson and Bows, 2012).
In addition to efforts to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from shipping, regulations
covering other pollutants are being implemented, which also have cost implications. Emissions
of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) are regulated according to the sulphur
content of the fuel. There is a direct correlation between SO2 emissions and sulphur content,
and a connection between PM emissions and sulphur content has also been established. These
regulations are intended to address problems with acidification (SO2) and health risks (PM).
However, explicit PM regulations, as apply to other diesel engines, may be needed in the future
to further mitigate the health risks associated with ship exhausts. The sulphur regulations mean
that the maximum permissible sulphur content of fuel will be 0.5% from 2020, down from 3.5%
today, and further, in special areas (Sulphur Emission Control Areas – SECAs) the limit will be
0.1% from 2015. Today, these areas comprise the North and Baltic Seas, the English Channel
and coastal waters around the United States and Canada. The other pollutant thatis regulated is
nitrogen oxides NOX, and emissions limits have been somewhat tightened for engines installed

4. after 2011. A further restriction will be implemented at some point during the period 2016-2021,
but only for special NOX emission control areas, currently only coastal waters around the United
States and Canada. This paper contains an overview of important parameters to consider in
order to improve the fuel efficiency of shipping. In addition, emissions are discussed and are
compared with other transport modes.
Regulatory drivers
Sulphur Oxide (SOx) emissions Limits:
- 19 May 2005 Annex VI to MARPOL entered into force.
- The revised Annex VI to MARPOL was adopted by IMO on 10 October 2008.
The sulphur oxide (SOx) and Particulate Matter emissions from ships will in general be
controlled by setting a limit on the sulphur content of marine fuel oils as follows. The sulphur
content of any fuel oil used on board ships shall not exceed the following limits:
NOx Emission Limits
Tier I * - Ships constructed 1 Jan 2000 to 31 Dec 2010
Tier II - Ships constructed 1 Jan 2011 to 31 Dec 2015
Tier III ** - Ships constructed 1 Jan 2016 onwards
*NOx limit in original Annex VI ** Within ECA

5. Energy Efficiency Definitions: EEDI, IEEC, SEEMP & EEOI
The EEDI:
EEDI stands for Energy Efficiency Design Index.
- It is an index quantifying the amount of carbon dioxide that a ship emits in
relation to the goods transported.
- indication of energy efficiency by CO2 emission (g) per cargo carry (ton
mile) The actual EEDI of a vessel is called the “attained EEDI” and is
calculated based on guidelines published by IMO. The result must be below
the limit (“required EEDI”) prescribed in MARPOL.
- For existing vessels, the EEDI is in most cases irrelevant. It will become
relevant only if a ship undergoes a major conversion that is so extensive that
the ship is regarded by the Administration as a newly constructed ship.
- For new ships, a technical file must be created showing the attained EEDI
and its calculation process.
(New ship means a ship:
.1 for which the building contract is placed on or after 1 January 2013; or
.2 in the absence of a building contract, the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction
on or after 1 July 2013; or
.3 the delivery of which is on or after 1 July 2015.)
- The EEDI and the technical file will be subject to verification by the flag
administration.
- The EEDI and technical file are not required for all ship types C.
(Type C means: Applicability is limited to the ship types defined in Reg. 2.25 to 2.35 of Annex VI)

6. The IEEC:
IEEC stands for International Energy Efficiency Certificate.
It is a newly introduced certificate that is mandatory for all vessels of 400 gross
tonnage and above.
- Contrary to most statutory certificates, the IEEC is not connected to a survey
scheme and does not have an expiry date.
- For new ships, the certificate will state both the attained and required EEDI
of the vessel.
- For new ships, an IEEC is to be issued at the vessel’s initial survey provided
the EEDI has been verified (for applicable vessels) and the SEEMP is on
board.
- For existing ships, the IEEC is to be issued on the first intermediate or
renewal survey for the IAPP certificate (whichever comes first) on or after 1
January 2013 provided the SEEMP is on board.
(Existing ships means: any ship which does not fall under the definition of a “new ship”.)
- Additionally, the IEEC must be re-issued in the case of a major conversion.
(A Major Conversion as defined in Annex VI means a conversion:
.1 which substantially alters the dimensions, carrying capacity or engine power of the ship; or
.2 which changes the type of the ship; or
.3 the intent of which in the opinion of the Administration is substantially to prolong the life of the ship; or
.4 which otherwise so alters the ship that, if it were a new ship, it would become subject to relevant provisions
of the present Convention not applicable to it as an existing ship; or
.5 which substantially alters the energy efficiency of the ship and includes any modifications that could cause
the ship to exceed the applicable required EEDI as set out in regulation 21 of Annex VI.)
- The latter applies definitely to new shipsB. IMO is expected to clarify (at
MEPC 64 in October) whether existing ships need an IEEC after any type of
major conversion.

7. The SEEMP:
SEEMP stands for Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan.
- The main purpose of the SEEMP is to lay down a mechanism for a company
and/or a ship to improve the energy efficiency of a ship’s operation and
preferably link it to a broader corporate energy management policy.
- All ships must have a SEEMP on board before the issuance of the first
IEEC.
- The SEEMP is not subject to approval or verification by the Administration.
The new MARPOL Annex VI Chapter 4: Energy Efficiency requirements coming
into force on 1 January 2013.
The EEOI:
EEOI stands for Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator.
- An efficiency indicator for all ships (new and existing) obtained from fuel
consumption, voyage (miles) and cargo data (tonnes)
- In its most simple form the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator is defined as
the ratio of mass of CO2 (M) emitted per unit of transport work
In order to establish the EEOI, the following main steps will generally be
needed:

8. 1. define the period for which the EEOI is calculated
2. define data sources for data collection;
3. collect data;
4. convert data to appropriate format; and
5. calculate EEOI.
Formula:
Where:
o j is the fuel type;
o i is the voyage number;
o FCi j is the mass of consumed fuel j at voyage i;
o CFj is the fuel mass to CO2 mass conversion factor for fuel j;
o mcargo is cargo carried (tonnes) or work done (number of TEU or passengers)
or gross tonnes for passenger ships; and
o D is the distance in nautical miles corresponding to the cargo carried or work
done.
The unit of EEOI depends on the measurement of cargo carried or work done,
e.g.tonnes CO2/(tonnes • nautical miles), tonnes CO2/(TEU • nautical miles),
tonnes CO2/(person • nautical miles), etc.
Example:

9. Ships design for energy efficiency
Some examples of technology innovations expected to be adopted through effective EEDI and
SEEMP implementation include speed reduction, weather routing, use of auxiliary power and a
focus on aerodynamics (see Figure 1). Speed reduction presents the largest opportunities for
reductions in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, because it can simultaneously optimise
engine efficiency and reduce hydrodynamic and aerodynamic loads. Optimisation of
maintenance and operational practices, such as regular propeller and hull cleaning, can also
reduce power requirements.
Technical measures that reduce fuel consumption in a cost-efficient way have resulted in highly
efficient marine engines and power trains, optimized flow profiles around Hull cleaning & coating
(1-10%), rudder/ propeller (1-8%), and innovations for water flow optimization such as bulbous
bow & stern construction (1-4%). For engine efficiency, waste heat recovery (6-8%), modern
engine controls technologies (0-1%), engine common rail mechanism (0-1%). Still, it is not
unusual for individual ships to consume up to 30% more fuel than necessary due to imperfect
design, badly used propulsive arrangements, or a poorly maintained hull and propeller. High
expectations of improved energy performance from technical improvements are also found in a
report for the Marine Environment Protection Committee of IMO, which estimates that design
measures could potentially reduce CO2 emissions by 10% to 50% per transport work.
Knowledge of the fuel-saving potential of technical measures related to hull and propeller
geometry, hull construction, propulsion machinery, auxiliary machinery and equipment, heat
recovery, cargo handling, and alternative energy sources is, in general, good within the industry.
There is a long tradition of development and research in these areas and the improvement
potential is estimated to be, on average, a few per cent of fuel savings in each category. A
remaining challenge is to increase knowledge of how the different technical systems on a ship
affect one other. Such knowledge is needed in order to enhance waste heat recovery or
efficiently reduce the use of electricity on board, which are highly effective measures for overall
energy economy. Use of High Voltage system onboard ships and electrical propulsion also can
play a major role for reduction of fuel consumption and can potentially reduce CO2 emissions.

10. Ships have long lifetimes and modifications and retrofits to existing ships are more expensive
than new designs, from a life-cycle perspective. The ship design process begins with a mission
analysis that outlines factors such as the types of goods to be transported, how they will be
loaded and unloaded, the routes and the service time. Based on these requirements, the
conceptual design phase starts, the dimensions and layout of the ship are determined and
powering needs are decided. The conceptual design phase consists mainly of technical
feasibility studies in order to decide whether the mission requirements can be translated into
reasonable technical parameters and still produce a seaworthy ship. This is followed by an
increasingly detailed design and refined ship characteristics.
Energy efficiency decisions are to a large extent already included in the conceptual phases of
the ship design process. Among the most important parameters for ship energy efficiency are
the main dimensions of the ship: length, breadth, depth and displacement. Small changes in
these parameters can result in big changes in energy need. The operational phase is by far the
most demanding period of a ship’s life cycle in energy terms. A well defined operational profile
from the early design stages is a promising way to develop an energy efficient ship of high
quality. Designing for operations should therefore also be prioritized over a less costly
construction at the yard from an energy efficiency perspective. Optimization efforts can be
counteracted by the yard’s requirements for a cost-efficient construction. Yards do not
necessarily take a life-cycle approach and are not always able to change an existing design, or
the changes may be very costly for the owner. The ship owner is unlikely to have the skill or the
power to plan for life-cycle costs under such conditions.
The most effective ways of reducing EEDI
1. Innovative technologies
 Wind (Skysail technologies)
 Solar
 Air lubrication
2. Alternative fuel
 LNG
 Nuclear
 Biofuels
3. Hull design optimisation can lead to significant reduction in fuel consumption.
Areas for improvement include:
 Hull itself – reduce skin friction.
 After-body – reduce wave making resistance.
 Bulbous bow - reduce wave making resistance.
 Flow optimisation around hull appendices and openings.
4. Ship aerodynamics
 Reducing air resistance
 More streamlined design of superstructures
 Deck-board location of machinery systems
5. Hull air lubrication
 Reduces hull skin friction by creating a partial air cushion.
 Up to 15% of fuel savings is claimed.
 This technology is still under trials and a number of pilot trials are underway.
 With Mitsubishi system, 6% savings has been reported in pilot cases
6. Efficiency rudder

11.  High efficiency rudders: Recovering of residual energy from propeller.
 Results in slimmer rudder profile, reduced rudder size and reduced hub drag.
 Installed on many vessels.
 Mostly suitable for ships with full aft body.
 3 to 7% energy savings is claimed.
7. Contra-rotating propeller / podded contra-rotating propeller
 Eliminates exit rotational losses which are almost 8-10% for conventional propellers.
 Improves propulsive efficiency by 16-20%.
 Better cavitation performance.
 Podded arrangement comprised contra rotating propeller housed on electric pod.
8. De-rated engines
 De-rating of the engine – Choice of a larger engine but with:
 A reduced MCR
 Same normal maximum cylinder pressure for the design continuous service rating
 Lower mean effective pressure
 The above results in a lower fuel consumption (lower SFOC)
 SFOC reduction of up to 5% are reported.
9. Long stroke engines
 Long stroke engines: As the name implies, they have longer stroke than other engines.
 They produce higher thermal efficiency than normal stroke engines (due to more
recovery of gas energy towards end of stroke).
10.Waste heat recovery
 Heat recovery from engines.
 Systems offered combine the base diesel engine with gas turbine and steam turbine.
 Higher power plant efficiency of 10 to 15% is claimed for the integrated system.
 Payback periods of 4 to 7 years is claimed, depending on fuel prices.
11.Renewable energy – Wind and sail concepts
 Wartsila’s concepts: Wing shaped sails of composite material installed on deck –
possible efficiency gain of ~20%.
 Flettner rotors installed on deck – provides thrusts perpendicular to wind direction.
 Renewable energy – Solar
 Skysails are being developed as towing-kites.
- Claimed savings ~10 to 35%.
- Suited more to larger vessels at speeds below 16 knots.
- A proper routing system is required.
12. Reduction of Engine speed (Slow-steaming)
- Running the ship on a economical speed or slow steaming ~ 10 to 30%
13.High efficiency electric motors
 Electric motor efficiencies are normally quoted at 80% to 95%.
 The range is relatively wide and there could be significant differences between alternative
designs.

12. 14.Variable speed drives
 Applicable to fluid rotating machinery such as pumps, compressors, etc.
 Flow control is best to be carried out by speed control.
- Recommended when the flow rate changes with time.
- Potential area of application:
- HVAC system fans.
- Boiler fans.
- IG fans.
- Pumps.
15.Lighting system
 Energy saving lamps.
 Occupancy sensors (public areas).
 Cabin card operated electric switches.
 Advanced lighting controls (cruise ships).
Operational measures
A wide variety of measures are needed to achieve successful and sustainable reductions in the
amount of fuel used per tonne of goods transported between ports of origin and destination.
Logistic measures, including slow steaming (reduction of speed) operations, higher capacity
utilization, and route planning are important, as are communication measures for improved port
call efficiencies and changed behaviour, for example renewed incentive structures within and
between organizations. Communication and behavioural aspects are important for successful
implementation of all measures, particularly during operations.
The operational energy efficiency measure with the most potential is slow steaming . As the
relationship between ship speed and fuel consumption per unit time is approximately cubical, a
minor speed reduction can have a considerable impact on fuel consumption. Slow steaming is
an attractive option in times of economic recession with an overcapacity of ships, but the effects
of slow steaming cannot be expected to be equally significant as the economy recovers and
shipping services are more in demand.
Suggestions for maintaining slow-speed operations in the international fleet in order to reduce
CO2 emissions from ships include fuel taxes and regulated speed restrictions for ships.
Another measure that would increase ships’ energy efficiency is to improve port efficiency, as
this would reduce vessels’ turnaround time in port. With a shorter time in port, the speed at sea
can be reduced while preserving the transport service. It was investigated that the possibilities
of reducing speed at sea for short sea bulk shipping by decreasing unproductive waiting time in
port. The results show that the two largest sources of unproductive time in port are waiting time
at berth when the port is closed, and waiting time at berth due to early arrival. With one to four
hours of decreased time per port call, the potential for increased energy efficiency was 2%-8%.
When discussing ship energy efficiency measures it is important to stress the different premises
for liner shipping and tramp shipping. Liner shipping provides regular services between
specified ports according to timetables and usually carries cargo for a number of cargo owners,
while tramp shipping is irregular in time and space. Ships in liner traffic have in many cases
been subject to careful logistic arrangements, including long-term cooperation with a limited
number of ports and fixed timetables and designated berths. Ships in tramp traffic will seldom
have dedicated berths and port slots and will most often visit several different ports, all of which
have specific procedures and administration relating to a port call.

13. Development of an energy-efficiency culture in international
shipping
While the EEDI and SEEMP regulations establish the energy-efficiency requirements for
shipping, there is a need to instill an energy-efficiency culture in international shipping,
particularly with regard to effective implementation of the SEEMP and ensuring the inculcation
of energy-efficiency measures.
The regulations require every ship to “keep on board a ship specific Ship Energy Efficiency
Management Plan (SEEMP)”, but there is a need to ensure that such plans are robustly
implemented, and to go beyond mere compliance.
Steps of IMO for implementations of Energy Efficiency
Measures, Chapter 4 MARPOL Annex VI:
In order to support countries which lack the requisite resources, experience or skills to
implement IMO treaties, the Organization has developed an Integrated Technical Co-
operation Programme (ITCP) which is designed to assist Governments by helping them
build the necessary capacity. This assistance is now being fine-tuned by developing
individual country profiles that closely identify the precise needs of developing countries.
Through these activities, IMO helps to transfer know-how to those countries that need it,
thereby promoting wider and more effective implementation of IMO measures. This,
increasingly, will be the Organization’s focus in the future, as IMO looks to play a leading

14. role in the drive towards a sustainable maritime sector.
The new chapter 4 to MARPOL Annex VI on Regulations on energy efficiency for ships
recognized this need with a specific regulation on Promotion of technical co-operation and
transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships. This
regulation requires the relevant national Administrations, in co-operation with IMO and
other international bodies, to promote and provide support to States, especially developing
States, that request technical assistance.
The regulation also requires the Administration of a Party to co-operate actively with other
Parties, subject to its national laws, regulations and policies, to promote the development
and transfer of technology and exchange of information to States, which request technical
assistance, particularly developing States, in respect of the implementation of measures to
fulfill the requirements of Chapter 4.
Further to this, in May 2013, IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)
adopted a resolution on Promotion of Technical Co-operation and Transfer of Technology
relating to the Improvement of Energy Efficiency of Ships.
The resolution, among other things, requests the Organization, through its various
programmes, to provide technical assistance to Member States to enable cooperation in
the transfer of energy-efficiency technologies to developing countries in particular; and
further assist in the sourcing of funding for capacity building and support to States, in
particular developing States, which have requested technology transfer.
Possible barriers to the uptake of energy-efficiency measures
A policy study to overcome barriers to the adoption of energy efficient measures , where a
barrier is defined as: “a postulated mechanism that inhibits a decision or behaviour that appears
to be both energy and economically efficient”.
The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (in a submission to the sixty-second
session of IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC) has identified
technological and commercial constraints as possible barriers to the uptake of energy efficiency
measures, requiring action by all stakeholders to overcome them:
Technological barriers: relate to concerns over the ability of the energy-efficiency technologies
available on the market to actually provide the benefits, in terms of emission reductions, as
claimed by the manufacturers of those systems.
Commercial barriers: relate to commercial arrangements that impede introduction or
expanded use of energy-efficiency solutions in shipping. The "split incentive” is one of the
biggest institutional barriers to implementing fuel saving projects that require capital
investments. This occurs when the ship owner, who controls capital spending, is not the same
as the operator, who is responsible for fuel costs and therefore receives the financial benefit
from any fuel savings.
Other commercial barriers lie in the contracts used in shipping: For example, a barrier to
fuel savings may occur when a ship is hired under a “voyage charter” (in which the ship owner is
responsible for all ship and voyage costs). The contract of carriage will normally have a “due
dispatch” clause that requires the ship to meet a contracted speed or a stated date for arrival. In
such cases, the opportunity to save fuel by sailing slower (thereby reducing GHG emissions)
may not be fully exploited.

15. Financial barriers: arise as some abatement solutions are only financially viable when fuel oil
prices reach a specific level and are expected to stay above a specific level long enough to
provide an adequate financial return on the investment.
High investment but low second-hand value: ships also have a second-hand value that does
not reflect investments in energy efficient equipment. Low second-hand values, and prices to
charter a ship that do not reflect the ship’s energy efficiency, as highly important institutional
barriers to the implementation of energy efficiency measures in the shipping industry.
Barriers in developing countries for the implementation of chapter
4 of MARPOL Annex VI:
The other barriers can be as follows:
 Lack of human and technical resources/capacities, in particular to monitor and track
ships’ compliance of national administrative authority,
 Lack of on-shore electric power or alternative energy sources to complement ships fuel
while in port
 Lack of national policy
 Lack of training for shore personnel and onboard ships’ crews.
 Need for financial assistance
 Poor awareness of Environmental effect and long term climate change issues
The probable effects of implementing chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI in a developing
country without examination the barriers and limitations, the potential implications
and impacts would be as follows:
 Poor understanding and cooperation by stakeholders, making implementation
process ineffective
 Forcing substandard ships to upgrade
 Retrofitting will be substantial cost
 Quality of alternative fuels
A number of potential impacts on industry:
 Need to increase awareness
A lack of awareness of the requirements by industry in the various regions was highlighted in
the regional workshops, both for the SEEMP requirements for existing ships and the EEDI
requirements for new ships. In order to be in compliance and maintain competitiveness, a
number of regional workshop participants expressed that industry would need to invest
resources to ensure they were up to date with new developments and implementation of new
requirements.
 Concern regarding non-compliant ships
The potential for an influx of older, substandard ships that do not meet the Annex VI
requirements into the region since a number of countries in the region are not yet parties to
MARPOL Annex VI. The potential increased risk of detention in other regions for ships not
meeting the requirements.
 Administrative burden
There could be an additional administrative burden on industry in the implementation of the new
requirements.

16.  Increased cost to shipowners
There could be additional costs for shipowners to implement the SEEMP requirements.
Additionally, the new requirements would translate into greater costs with respect to building
ships to meet the requirements. This could be particularly difficult for small and medium-sized
shipowners, and could provide a competitive disadvantage.
 Improved fuel economy
The new requirements would contribute to improved fuel economy and energy efficiency, which
would potentially lead to a reduction in fuel costs.
Energy Efficiency Culture is for a better future:
IMO’s technical co-operation programme exists to provide co-ordinated technical assistance to
States and there is much that can be done by Governments, industry and other stakeholders to
support an energy-efficiency culture and to overcome the barriers to achieving optimum
reductions in GHG emissions.
Further discussion between ship owners and charterers, and the upgrading of charter party
contracts, could help to develop benefit-sharing practices for reducing fuel consumption. This is
something that has already been seen – for example, the industry, in consultation with technical
experts, has developed a standard form of slow-steaming (economical speed) clauses for both
time and voyage charter parties.
Finally, Governments could look at ways to incentivise energy-efficient ship operations to
encourage faster implementation of energy-efficiency measures and the inculcation of an
energy-efficiency culture, which lies at the heart of a sustainable maritime transportation
system.
References:
1. www.imo.org
2. www.cepal.org/tranporte- Bulletin
3. World Energy Outlook Special Report (OECD/IEA, 2013).
4. Development Policy, Statistics and Research Branch working paper 13/2011, United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
-------------------------------------------The End-----------------------------------------------------------------