anti-trust/competition law compliance statement
DESCRIPTION
Anti-Trust/Competition Law Compliance Statement. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Anti-Trust/Competition Law Compliance Statement
INTERTANKO’s policy is to be firmly committed to maintaining a fair and competitive environment in the world tanker trade, and to adhering to all
applicable laws which regulate INTERTANKO’s and its members’ activities in these markets. These laws include the anti-trust/competition laws which the
United States, the European Union and many nations of the world have adopted to preserve the free enterprise system, promote competition and protect the public from monopolistic and other restrictive trade practices.
INTERTANKO’s activities will be conducted in compliance with its Anti-trust/Competition Law Guidelines.
IMO GHG REGULATIONS
COUNCIL MeetingLondon
5. October 2011
GHG – EEDI/SEEMP Regulation• Part of the MARPOL Convention• EEDI applies to new: Tankers, Bulk Carriers, Gas
Tankers, Container Ships, General Cargo Ships, Refrigerated Cargo Carriers
• EEDI does not apply to: ships with diesel-electric propulsion, turbine propulsion or hybrid propulsion systems
• New tankers (> 400 GT): – building contract from 1 January 2013 and– delivery not later than 30 June 2015
• SEEMP required for ALL ships
5000
2000
035
00050
00065
00080
00095
000
1100
00
1250
00
1400
00
1550
00
1700
00
1850
00
2000
00
2150
00
2300
00
2450
00
2600
00
2750
00
2900
00
3050
00
3200
00
3350
00
3500
00
3650
00
3800
00
3950
000.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
EEDI IMPLEMENTATION
DWT
EED
I
PHASE 0 (2013 – 2014) – IMO Reference LinePHASE 1 (2015 – 2019) – 10% lower than IMO Ref LinePHASE 2 (2020 – 2024) – 20% lower than IMO Ref LinePHASE 3 (2025 & after) - 30% lower than IMO Ref Line
Attained EEDI < Required EEDI value
X
Required EEDI = IMO Reference Line x Y%
IMO Reference Line tankers =1218.80 x DWT -0.488
attained EEDI
GHG – EEDI/SEEMP Regulation• Administrations may delay the
enforcement of EEDI application with up to 4 years. (i.e. building contract before 1 January 2017)
• Parties to MARPOL Annex VI have agreed to allow ships with such waivers to call at their ports
IMO Guidelines
• Method for EEDI calculation• Survey and Certification of the EEDI• Interim Guidelines for determining
minimum propulsion power and speed to enable safe manoeuvring in adverse weather conditions
• EEDI for larger size segments of tankers and bulk carriers
• Cubic capacity correction factor for chemical tankers
CONCLUSIONS
• INTERTANKO policy achieved• Phase 0: many designs are compliant• Phase 1: first 2 years possible waiver at
owner’s request & Flag agreement• No waivers from 1 January 2017• Lower speed design – easiest “solution” • Intent of EEDI: better designs ~ less fuel
necessary to transport same amount of cargo at the same speed as today
COUNCIL INVITED TO• Consider INTERTANKO’s views on options to
waive the application of EEDI up to 4 years• If not in favour of such waivers – membership
criterion? (e.g. all tankers contracted from 1 Jan 2013 EEDI compliant)
• Whether INTERTANKO may express any view with regard to use of lower design speed as means of compliance
RECOMMENDED INTERTANKO POSITION:
1. INTERTANKO welcomes the adoption by IMO of amendments to the MARPOL Convention mandating energy efficiency measures (EEDI/SEEMP regulations) on ships.
2. INTERTANKO believes that: a) In the implementation of the EEDI requirements, there should
be a “level playing field” and that the EEDI requirements should apply equally to all applicable ships on the same effective date
b) Compliance with EEDI should focus on improved hull design, propulsion efficiency and energy optimisation, rather than predominantly on reduced speed designs
c) Any measures taken to comply with EEDI shall not jeopardise nor have an adverse effect on the safety of the ship
MARKET BASED MEASURES
COUNCIL MEETINGLondon
5. October 2011
QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL• Would INTERTANKO see any justification
for a MBM? • No matter justified or not, should
INTERTANKO support/be involved in development of the MBM legislation?
• If involved in IMO MBMs, which model should be supported?
• Alternatively, should a “fund free” alternative be supported? i.e. direct targeted emissions reduction from ships in operation
MARKET BASED MEASURES & ONE ALTERNATIVE
• Nine MBM proposals + one alternative• The possible runners up:
– International GHG FUND (Denmark)– Emissions Trading Scheme (Norway; UK;
Germany and France) – EU ETS !!– Vessel Efficiency Incentive Scheme (EIS)
(Japan/WSC)– Mandatory CO2 emission cut targets through
technical and operational measures (Bahamas)
GHG FUND ETS
UNFCCC IMO GHG FUND
SHIP
MARKET IMO/ETS
SHIP
Levy v
s. Cred
its
OFFSETTING
BU
YIN
G C
RED
ITS
SUBMIT CREDITS
CONTORLSE L
LIN
G
GHG FUND ETS• centralised system• CO2 credit vs. Levy• sets a target• ship not trading CO2• better predictability
of costs• no guarantee against
increase levy levels• Charterers involved• World Scale
• sets a target• credits up to the cap
– free or auctioning• additional credits –
open market ( cap)• ships trade• “good ships” can sell• no international
market• EU market very small• cruise lines like ETS
VESSEL EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE SCHEME (EIS)
No fee for ships meeting or exceeding applicable standard
Fee applied if not meeting standard =
($Y/t fuel) x total tons of fuel
Y = f (Δ) from the standard
CO2 emissions cut targets• Technical and operational measures only• No penalties to pay, no rewards to be
given, no funds to be collected• New ships (EEDI compliant)
• Existing ships – targeted reductions
• No compliance – no trade
Age (years) Up to 15 15 – 20 20 - 25 25+Cut 20% 15% 10% 5%
Delivered < 2 years from rule enforcement
> 2 years from rule enforcement
Cut 20% 25%
EIS TARGETING
• direct reductions• rewards efficiency• EEDI relevant for
operational efficiency?• VA not accounted for• slow steaming only if ME
derated• difficult to establish
target cut levels• limitation in using EEOI • fee level (improve or
pay?)• monitoring/reporting
• measures actual GHG emissions
• targets each ship• no fund collection• Virtual Arrival & slow
steaming will count• caps ship’s activity• ships stop trading?• difficult to establish
target cut levels• monitoring/reporting
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
CO2 mt (increase 3.3%/ year)CO2 mt (increase 2%/ year)CO2 mt (actual)*
YEAR
CO2
EMIS
SIO
NS (M
T)
Reference point
870MT
CO2 EMISSIONS PREDICTIONS
3.3% p.a.
2% p.a.
2% p.a.
1,836 MT
1,425 MT
979 MT
Trade
+ 111%??
+25%
+ 64%?
IMPACT ON SHIPPING
• GHG FUND: 5% increased voyage costs*• ETS: 11% increased voyage costs*• MBMs high admin costs –who benefits?• Shipping cannot absorb all cost increase• MBM targets set just to collect funds?
• If the MBM scope is , limit the cost!
* PwC Study – An analysis of the future impact of carbon regulations on environment and industry
CONCLUSIONS• IMO will continue to discuss MBMs• Choices: (a) collecting funds; (b) direct
measures on ships in operations; or both• Monitoring/verification of CO2 emissions
from each ship would be necessary• Shipping fuel consumption: not known!• Shipping lacks mechanism for proper
recording of performance in operations• Lack of such allows other parties to
initiate ship indexing
CONCLUSIONS• Class Societies developing models to
assess/measure environmental efficiency• Ports’ and charterers’ various Indexes • Others (e.g. CWR) ship index calculators• Shipowners may consider action• Ships in operations (pre- & post-EEDI)
would need to evaluate, demonstrate and report their energy efficiency
• Ships have necessary data (from SEEMP/EEOI, SOx, NOx and VOC)
QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL• Is there justification for MBMs? • If so, which MBM scheme? . . . . . or • “in operation” indexing? • Industry indexing model?• Industry to measure andreport its ?
• If so, what and where to report?• Please, discuss and decide !
RECOMMENDED INTERTANKO POSITION:• An MBM is not justified at this time. The
industry is already incentivised by high fuel prices
• If an MBM should be required, then this should:– be implemented through an international regime– be simple to enforce and to monitor– drive the right behaviour– provide sufficient transparency to maintain the
current level playing filed– not be an unnecessary financial and operational
burden on the industry
RECOMMENDED INTERTANKO POSITION
• Out the current proposals, the GHG FUND seems to be by far the simplest and most transparent from a ship owner point of view. INTERTANKO is not in favour of a trading scheme to reduce GHG emissions.