Small Ships Should Not be Included in European MRV Regs Say ECSA

The European Community Shipowners' Associations (ECSA) has published a position paper strongly opposing the extension of the scope of the proposed MRV Regulation to include ships of 400 gt or above.

Background
The European Commission issued a proposal in June 2013 for a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification Regulation of CO2 emissions from ships calling at EU ports, which lays the foundation for a global measure to reduce CO2 emissions from international shipping.

The proposal required ships above 5000 gross tons (GT) to monitor and report the verified amount of CO2 emitted on voyages to, from and between EU ports. Ships were also required to provide certain other information, such as data to determine their energy efficiency.

Amended proposal to include small ships, NOx emissions
In late January 2014, the European Parliament adopted the draft report of the rapporteur MEP Theodoros Skylakakis, as amended after a debate in the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee.

According to this report, the scope of the regulation should be extended to also cover smaller ships and more types of emissions. Whereas the initial Commission proposal only made reference to ships above 5000 GT, the text adopted by the ENVI Committee foresees that smaller ships of 400 GT or above should also be included in the Regulation. Moreover, the text extends the scope of the proposed Regulation by including Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions.

Objection to the amendment
“We appeal to the legislators’ reason” said Patrick Verhoeven, ECSA Secretary General. “Let us not forget that the MRV system is supposed to be the first step to a global solution on CO2 emissions from shipping. By extending the scope of the proposed Regulation, the EU might hinder a speedy agreement at IMO level, thus shooting itself in the foot".

“The 400 GT limit and the resulting inclusion of small emitters will place unacceptable burdens on small ships, which proportionally represent but a very limited fraction of the total CO2 emissions” continued Mr. Verhoeven.

On the inclusion of NOx emissions, he added: “The equipment required to monitor other emissions than CO2, such as NOx, is not sufficiently reliable, or commercially available for that matter” and continued by saying that “continuous NOx monitoring is much more complex and technologically challenging than CO2 monitoring. For these reasons, we strongly believe that the proposed MRV system should be implemented for CO2 emission monitoring only."

The ECSA position papaer is at: http://bit.ly/1de9Xhy