Research Proposal:

Image Credit: Wartsila

TITLE OF RESEARCH:

“Examination of the barriers for adoption of the Energy Efficiency measures for developing countries”

By Mohammud Hanif Dewan, IEng, IMarEng, MIMarEST (UK), MRINA(UK), Lecturer , Malaysian Maritime Academy (ALAM), Malaysia.

Introduction:Energy efficiency is a very broad term referring to the many different ways we can get the same amount of work (light, heat, motion, etc.) done with less energy. It covers efficient cars on the roads, efficient ships in the waters, improved industrial practices, better building insulation and a host of other technologies. Since saving energy and saving money often amount to the same thing, energy efficiency is highly profitable and great contributor for the climate change issue. Energy efficiency often has multiple positive effects. For a simple example, an energy saving light gives more amount of light by consuming less amount of electrical energy than a traditional lightbulbs. Compared to traditional incandescents, energy-efficient lightbulbs such as halogen incandescents, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and light emitting diodes (LEDs) have the following advantages:

Typically use about 25%-80% less energy than traditional incandescents, saving you money,

Can last 3 to 5 times longer, saving you money, 4 to 5 times less energy consumption and Thus saving more energy. So, less fuel

consumption and less emissions from power plants.(Source: U.S. Department of Energy)

Scope of research:International shipping plays a vital role in the facilitation of world trade as the most cost-effective and energy-efficient mode of mass transport, making a significant contribution to global prosperity in both developing and developed countries. Shipping currently represents about 2.7% of global emissions, while transporting approximately 85% of goods traded internationally. While shipping is a relatively efficient mode of transport, the size of the sector means that it emits high quantities of greenhouse gases. So, it’s 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.It has been noticed, a number of studies that describe and evaluate real- world policy measures for encouraging energy efficiency in shipping industries by International Maritime Organization (IMO). This research particular focus on developing countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh and has intended to cover and survey small or large ship owners, shipping companies or ship managers and their seafarers to find out the real barrier for adoption of energy efficiency measures and examine or analysis each barriers. If we can classify the barriers in some common terms of problems, then it may become easy to find out some solutions to overcome them.

Objectives: The purpose of this research to examine the Barriers for Adoption of Energy Efficient measures by shipping industries in developing countries. The target of this research to prepare an overall report is to scrutinize the evidence supporting the view that there are real barriers to energy efficient technologies considered profitable, that these barriers can be overcome, and that there are various mechanisms through which to address these barriers, but these actions have yet to be fully explored in developing countries.

The specific objectives of this research:1. Assess the effectiveness of policies and programmes aimed at encouraging the uptake of

energy efficient maritime technologies, especially in developing countries.

- Hydrocarbons (HC): abt. 180 ppm

2. Examine and classify the common key problems of the barriers for adoption of energy efficiency measures by the shipping companies of developing countries.

3. Determine some key considerations that can help to overcome barriers to energy efficiency and encourage the successful adoption of maritime energy efficient innovations to comply with regulations.

4. Provide some guidance for policy makers in assessing the strengths and limitations of maritime energy efficiency policy (while recognizing that providing overall policy prescriptions is difficult due to the varied contexts, technologies, locations etc.)

Background: Typical concentrations of exhaust emissions by the fossil fueled diesel engine 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

If no regulatory measures were developed, CO2 emissions were projected to grow between 200% and 300% by 2050, despite significant market-driven efficiency improvements.The amendments to MARPOL Annex VI Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships, add a new chapter 4 to Annex VI on Regulations on energy efficiency for ships to make

mandatory the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships, and the Shipboard Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships (resolution MEPC.203(62)). Other amendments add new definitions and requirements for survey and certification, including the format for the new International Energy Efficiency Certificate (IEEC). The new regulations apply to all merchant ships of 400 gross tonnage and above regardless of the national flag they fly or the nationality of the owner, and are entered into force globally on 1 January 2013. However, an Administration that considers that it on its industry needs more time to comply may waive the requirement for new ships from complying with the EEDI for up to four years.

The adoption by IMO of mandatory reduction measures for all ships from 2013 and onwards will lead to significant emission reductions and also a striking cost saving for the shipping industry. By 2020, up to 200 million tonnes of annual CO2 reductions are estimated from the introduction of the EEDI for new ships and the SEEMP for all ships in operation, a figure that, by 2030, will increase to 420 million tonnes of CO2 annually. In other words, the reductions will in 2020 be between 10 and 17%, and by 2030 between 19 and 26% compared with business as usual (BAU). The reduction measures will also result in a significant saving in fuel costs to the shipping industry, although these savings require deeper investments in more efficient ships and more sophisticated technologies than the business as usual scenario. The annual fuel cost saving estimates states a staggering figure of $20 to 80 billion by 2020, and even more astonishing $90 – 310 billion by 2030.The amendments to MARPOL Annex VI making energy efficiency standards mandatory constitute the first international climate change treaty provisions to be formally adopted since the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the first ever globally binding instrument introducing energy efficiency regulations for any international industry sector.

Based on scenarios modelled in this Study, results shows that the adoption by IMO of mandatory reduction measures from 2013 and onwards will lead to significant emission reductions by the shipping industry (see below Figure).

Figure – Overall annual CO2 reduction potential for SEEMP and EEDI (waiver 5%) (Source: MEPC 63, IMO)

By 2020, an average of 151.5 million tonnes of annual CO2 reductions are estimated from the introduction of the EEDI for new ships and the SEEMP for all ships in operation, a figure that by 2030, will increase to an average of 330 million tonnes annually.

In 2011, IMO adopted mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures which are expected to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from international shipping. These mandatory measures (EEDI/SEEMP) entered into force on 1   January 2013.

 IMO has adopted important guidelines aimed at supporting implementation of the mandatory measures to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions from international shipping, paving the way for the regulations on EEDI and SEEMP to be smoothly implemented by Administrations and industry.

The expected growth of world trade represents a challenge to meeting a future target for emissions required to achieve stabilization in global temperatures and so IMO has begun consideration of further technical and operational measures to enhance the energy efficiency of ships.

MARPOL Annex VI Chapter 4: Energy Efficiency Regulations

The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) was made mandatory for new ships and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships at MEPC 62 (July 2011) with the adoption of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.203(62)), by Parties to MARPOL Annex VI. This was the first legally binding climate change treaty to be adopted since the Kyoto Protocol. 

Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)

The EEDI for new ships is the most important technical measure and aims at promoting the use of more energy efficient (less polluting) equipment and engines. The EEDI requires a minimum energy efficiency level per capacity mile (e.g. tonne mile) for different ship type and size segments. Since 1 January 2013, following an initial two year phase zero, new ship design needs to meet the reference level for their ship type. The level is to be tightened incrementally every five years, and so the EEDI is expected to stimulate continued innovation and technical development of all the components influencing the fuel efficiency of a ship from its design phase. The EEDI is a non-prescriptive, performance-based mechanism that leaves the choice of technologies to use in a specific ship design to the industry. As long as the required energy efficiency level is attained, ship designers and builders are free to use the most cost-efficient solutions for the ship to comply with the regulations. The EEDI provides a specific figure for an individual ship design, expressed in grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per ship’s capacity-mile (the smaller the EEDI the more energy efficient ship design) and is calculated by a formula based on the technical design parameters for a given ship.

 The CO2 reduction level (grams of CO2 per tonne mile) for the first phase is set to 10% and will be tightened every five years to keep pace with technological developments of new efficiency and reduction measures. Reduction rates have been established until the period 2025 and onwards when a 30% reduction is mandated for applicable ship types calculated from a reference line representing the average efficiency for ships built between 2000 and 2010. The EEDI is developed for the largest and most energy intensive segments of the world merchant fleet and will embrace emissions from new ships covering the following ship types: oil tankers,

bulk carriers, gas carriers, general cargo ships, container ships, refrigerated cargo carriers and combination carriers. In 2014, MEPC adopted amendments to the EEDI regulations to extend the scope of EEDI to: LNG carriers, ro-ro cargo ships (vehicle carriers), ro-ro cargo ships; ro-ro passenger ships and cruise passenger ships having non-conventional propulsion. These amendments mean that ship types responsible for approximately 85% of the CO2 emissions from international shipping are incorporated under the international regulatory regime.

Since 2012, Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted / approved or amended following important guidelines aimed at assisting the implementation of the mandatory regulations on Energy Efficiency for Ships in MARPOL Annex VI:

2014 Guidelines on survey and certification of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) (resolution MEPC.254(67))

2014 Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained Energy Efficiency Design Index for new ships (resolution MEPC.245(66))

2013 Guidelines for calculation of reference lines for use with the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) (resolution MEPC.231(65))

2013 Guidelines for calculation of reference lines for use with the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for cruise passenger ships having non-conventional propulsion (resolution MEPC.233(65))

2013 Interim guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in adverse conditions, as amended (resolutions MEPC.232(65) and MEPC.255(67))

2012 Guidelines for the development of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan, SEEMP (resolution MEPC.213(65))

2013 Guidance on treatment of innovative energy efficiency technologies for calculation and verification of the attained EEDI (MEPC.1/Circ.815)

Interim Guidelines for the calculation of the coefficient fw for decrease in ship speed in a representative sea condition for trial use (MEPC.1/Circ.796)

EEDI and ship technologies: Technologies which are available to significantly improve energy efficiency in the short, medium and long-term include:

1. Ship capacity enhancement Larger ships Purposely designed ships for specific routes/cargo mixers Multi-purpose ships (combination carriers) to avoid ballast (empty) legs Use of light weight construction materials; Zero or minimum ballast configurations;

2. Hull and propeller Hull optimisation for less resistance and improved sea margins. Advanced underwater hull coatings and monitoring.

More hydro-dynamically efficient aft-ship, propeller and rudder arrangements. Reduced air drag through improved aerodynamics of hull and superstructure. Hull air lubrication systems.

3. Engines, waste heat recovery and propulsion system More efficient main and auxiliary engines

(de-rating, electronic control, longstroke, variable geometry turbocharger, etc.); Waste heat recovery and ship‘s thermal energy integration; Fuel cell and hybrid electric technologies

4. Alternative fuels LNG Nuclear5. Alternative sources of energy Solar panels Wind power such as kites, sails and flettner rotors

The list of technologies that is expected to be used for reducing future ship‘s EEDI:

Source: MEPC 63, IMO.

Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP): - The Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) is an operational measure that

establishes a mechanism to improve the energy efficiency of a ship in a cost-effective manner.

- The SEEMP also provides an approach for shipping companies to manage ship and fleet efficiency performance over time using, for example, the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) as a monitoring tool.

- The guidance on the development of the SEEMP for new and existing ships incorporates best practices for fuel efficient ship operation, as well as guidelines for voluntary use of the EEOI for new and existing ships.

- The SEEMP urges the ship owner and operator at each stage of the plan to consider new technologies and practices when seeking to optimise the performance of a ship.

- A SEEMP is expected to lead to primarily enhanced technical and operational management (first bullet above). Logistics and port-related energy efficiency measures are also influenced by a SEEMP but to a second degree as these measures involve many stakeholders and are more complicated to implement.

Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI):- The Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) is a monitoring tool for managing ship

and fleet efficiency performance over time. - The EEOI enables operators to measure the fuel efficiency of a ship in operation and to

gauge the effect of any changes in operation, e.g. improved voyage planning and more frequent propeller cleaning, or the introduction of technical measures such as waste heat recovery systems or a new propeller.

- An efficiency indicator for all ships (new and existing) obtained from fuel consumption, voyage (miles) and cargo data (tonnes)

- Most simple form the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator is defined as the ratio of mass of CO2 (M) emitted per unit of transport work

SEEMP related measures:

Source: MEPC 63, IMO.

Ships design for energy efficiencySome 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.

Source: www.imo.org

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.

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.

Operational measuresA 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.

Development of an energy-efficiency culture in international shippingWhile 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. The regulatory guidelines from IMO:

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 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.

Energy Efficiency Gap Analysis: A barrier may be defined as a postulated mechanism that inhibits investment in technologies that are both energy efficient and economically efficient (Sorrel et al., 2004). An important clarification in the barriers debate (Golove and Eto, 2006) is to differentiate between energy efficiency and economic efficiency. According to Sweeney (1993) “energy efficiency investments should be promoted only to the extent that it improves economic efficiency or increases net social welfare” (Golove and Eto, 2006). This is important in the discussion of low carbon shipping technologies available since some may not lead to economic efficiency but nonetheless are required to meet the higher-level ambitions toward a low carbon energy efficient shipping industry.

Decreases energy Increases energy intensityIncreases economic A) Energy efficiency B) Energy enhanced progressDecreases economic C) Not promoted D) Rejected as undesirable

Table 1: Energy efficiency versus economic efficiency Source: Golove and Eto (2006)

The term ‘energy efficiency gap’ refers to the difference between the actual lower levels of implementation of energy efficiency measures and the higher level that would appear to be cost - beneficial/effective from the consumers/firms point of view based on techno-economic analysis (Brown, 2001 and Golove and Eto, 2006). Some of the energy efficiency gap can be explained by rational behaviour to market barriers that may not be captured by the techno-economic analysis. If these can be accurately modelled, then the remaining energy efficiency gap can be explained by market failures, as shown in below Figure.

Modellingartefacts – difference in savings potentials of economist vs. technologist

Rational behaviour – Non market failures e.g. cost of capital, heterogeneity etc.

Barriers – behavioural, organizational and economic market failures

-=Energy efficiency gap Actual implementation (realized potential)

Ideal implementation (ideal potential)

Exp

lain

ed

by

Figure: Explaining the energy efficiency gap

Sorrell et al. (2004) also suggest introducing transaction costs and more realistic representation of the decision making process to explain the energy efficiency gap. According to Brown (2001) market barriers are obstacles that are not based on market failures but nonetheless contribute to the slow diffusion and adoption of energy efficient measures. They can therefore be called non market failures, which are defined as “where the organization is behaving rationally given the risk adjusted rate of return on an investment in the existing context of energy, capital and unavoidable ‘hidden’ costs” (Sorrell et al., 2004, p33). These are real features of the decision making environment, albeit ones which are difficult to incorporate in engineering-economic modelling (Sorrell et al., 2000). A market failure occurs when the requirements for efficient or optimal allocation of resources through well- functioning markets are violated, which leads to incomplete markets, imperfect competition, imperfect and asymmetric information.

 Possible barriers to the uptake of energy-efficiency measures in developing countries: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.

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.

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

Methodology of the Research: The target of this research is to carry out an overall policy study to scrutinize the real barriers for adoption of the energy efficiency measures which are considered profitable. There are various mechanisms through which to classify and address these barriers, but these actions have yet to be fully explored in developing countries. However, the research will be carried out by the following steps:

1. Assess the effectiveness of policies and programmes aimed at encouraging the uptake of energy efficient maritime technologies, especially in developing countries.

2. Examine and classify the common key problems of the barriers for adoption of energy efficiency measures by the shipping companies of developing countries.

3. By the surveying of some shipping companies of a specific developing country, the energy efficiency gap to find out by analysing the ideal and actual implementations of energy efficiency regulations.

4. Determine some key considerations that can help to overcome barriers to energy efficiency and encourage the successful adoption of maritime energy efficient innovations to comply with regulations.

5. Provide some guidance for policy makers in assessing the strengths and limitations of maritime energy efficiency policy (while recognizing that providing overall policy prescriptions is difficult due to the varied contexts, technologies, geographic locations etc.)

The research will be conducted in a selected developing country (e.g. Malaysia) by the field survey of her ship owners and ship management companies.

References:

1. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, InterimGuidelines on the method of calculation of the Energy Efficiency Design Index for new ships, MEPC.1/Circ.681, 2009

2. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, InterimGuidelines on the voluntary verification of the Energy Efficiency Design Index for new ships, MEPC.1/Circ.682, 2009

3. Lloyd’s Register Approach to IMO Technical Measures in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships

4. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, Guidance for the Development of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan, MEPC.1/Circ.683, 2009

5. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, Guidelines for Voluntary Use of the Ship Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator, MEPC.1/Circ.684, 2009

6. International Maritime Organization, “Assessment of IMO energy efficiency measures for the control of GHG emissions from Ships”, report by LR and DNV, MEPC 60/INF.18, 15 January 2010.

7. International Maritime Organization, “CO2 emission reduction potential by the requiredEEDI in accordance with regulatory options developed by EE-WG 1”, Report by LR and DNV, MEPC 61/WP.5, September 2010.

8. International Maritime Organization, “Marginal abatement costs and cost-effectiveness ofenergy-efficiency measures” Report by IMarEST, MEPC 61/INF.18, 23 July 2010.

9. Bazari, Z and Reynolds G “Sustainable Energy in Marine Transportation”, IMarESTConference on “Sustainable shipping: progress in a changing world”, February 2005, London, UK.

10. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee “Report on the outcome of the IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships”, MEPC 45/8, International Maritime Organisation, London 2000.

11. International Maritime Organization, Resolution A.963(23) “IMO policies and practicesrelated to the reduction of GHG emissions from ships”, Adopted by 23rd Session of IMO Assembly, December 2003.

12. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, InterimGuidelines for voluntary ship CO2 emission indexing for use in trials, MEPC/Circ.471, 2005.

13.Reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency in international shipping byKoji Sekimizu, Secretary-General, International Maritime Organization (IMO)

14.www.cepal.org/tranporte- Bulletin (Issue No. 324 – Number 8 / 2013)15.World Energy Outlook Special Report (OECD/IEA, 2013).16.Development Policy, Statistics and Research Branch working paper 13/2011, United

Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)17. Implementation Barriers to Low Carbon Shipping (by Nishat Abbas Rehmatulla, Tristan

Smith, Paul Wrobel)

-------------------------------------------The End-----------------------------------------------------------------