MONITORING, REPORTING & VERIFICATION INTERTANKO POSITION & ACTIVITY

Transcription

1 MONITORING, REPORTING & VERIFICATION INTERTANKO POSITION & ACTIVITY INTERTANKO s standing at this moment: 1. Support the concept of MRV 2. INTERTANKO appropriate Committees investigate the details of Operational Efficiency/MRV with the objective of proactively influencing its suitable development 3. Define by end of 2013 the INTERTANKO policy & contribution to this regulatory development Follow up actions and time plan for this activity: 1. Attended stakeholders meeting in Brussels in December Meeting with a group of Governments developing MRV models (January 2013) 3. Establishment of an INTERTANKO working group on MRV 4. WG meeting in April WG plans a new meeting in July ISTEC/EC to consider WG conclusions and suggestion 7. INTERTANKO Council to finalise the policy standing and consider possible submission to IMO/MEPC 66

2 Working Group on MRV - Terms of Reference Determine best approach for INTERTANKO to assess fuel or vessel efficiency with specific recommendations on: mechanism for initiating collection of fuel consumption data; the best measure of improvement (fuel consumption or ship s efficiency) if the latter, the best definition of ship s efficiency eventual collection of other data if found relevant to the best approach considered how to integrate or remove from the measurement, the influence of other stakeholders (importers, charterers, cargo owners, etc.)

3 UPDATE REPORT FROM THE WG ON MRV General guideline: the MRV model should be simple (protect its credibility through its simplicity), easy to verify, use data already mandated through existing regulations. Mechanism for initiating collection of fuel* consumption data: using the cumulative data on BDNs for each type of fuel to which it should apply a correction factor to cover non-combusted amount of bunkers delivered to ships such as sludge, water content, weight difference due to deviation from density, etc. * conventional bunker, not including LNG, Methanol, etc. Practical example for fuel monitoring: 1. First day of the recording period (e.g. 1. Jan) inspection and record of ROBs in ship s bunker tanks 2. Record all BDNs 3. Keep record of all bunkering entries in the ORB Part I, Code H 4. Last day of the recording period (e.g. 31. Dec) inspection and record of ROBs in ship s bunker tanks 5. Check balance on different records versus other records on fuel consumption

4 UPDATE REPORT FROM THE WG ON MRV Best measure of improvement (fuel consumption or ship s efficiency) Current opinion that ship s efficiency is the best method to measure performance improvement. The fuel consumption is the critical parameter. CO 2 emissions are proportional to the fuel consumption. Fuel consumption is dictated by factors like speed, distance, cargo carried, trading area and weather and ship s technical characteristics. Since many of these factors are not entirely controlled by the ship owner, optimisation of fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions require the commitment of all stakeholders in the transportation chain. Definition of ship s efficiency The WG still to conclude on a suggested definition of the ship s efficiency but explores options on practical steps to be adopted in a MRV model to capture the critical elements which could measure ship s efficiency and its increase. Definition of ship s efficiency should, in a broader sense be weighted and clarified versus the term of transportation efficiency

5 UPDATE REPORT FROM THE WG ON MRV Collection of other data (annual reporting): Fuel Consumption Time spent in laden & ballast conditions Time at berth (as per definition on the EU Sulphur Directive) Distance in laden and ballast conditions Cargo amount For internal use only, the WG would collect from members annual fuel consumption data & other data on tankers (years 2010, 2011 & 2012)

6 UPDATE REPORT FROM THE JWG ON MRV - VERIFICATION Report provided on an annual basis to the Flag Administration but that data should be submitted to an IMO central database The verification of the data submitted should be made by the ship s RO. WG will explore four options identified so far as alternatives on how verification could take place: Verification under ISM Code at the company s office At annual RO inspection of the ship Audit at company s office before submitting the Annual MRV Report The ship/company submits the Annual MRV Report and all relevant documentation to the RO or the Flag Administration which would randomly check the veracity of the data reported