TIM eMagazine Vol.4 Issue 2
IMO-meeting was not a missed
opportunity
W
hat the Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) and the working
group accomplished last week, was to
finalise and agree on a set of procedures
for assessment of impact on states from
the proposed short-term measures. An
important stop block has thus been
removed which paves the way for
advancement of individual proposals.
The meeting didn’t postpone anything.
Many press reports characterise what
happened at MEPC 74 as a postponement because of disagreement
between member states.
It is important to note that the agreed work-plan to implement the initial
strategy on GHG reduction never intended for the working group to start
detailed deliberations or shortlisting any of the proposed measures at this
meeting. We must remember that the initial strategy has a requirement
that for each proposed measure, its impacts on states must be assessed
before a proposal can be advanced.
The proposed short-term measure on mandatory speed limits now need
to be assessed for its impact on states, and this information in part will
decide if the “slow steaming proposal”, for example, will be advanced.
The MEPC did agree on several amendments to MARPOL Annex VI
with one being advancement and/or tightening of the EEDI phase 3
requirements for new ships.
We also note, that with the agreement to host two more intersessional
working group meetings before the next MEPC in spring of 2020, the work
plan is intact for delivering the much sought-after measures that further
reduces shipping’s carbon footprint.
FONAR doesn’t mean “get out of jail free”
The conveniently named “draft interim guidance for port state control on
contingency measures for addressing non-compliant fuel oil”, agreed upon
at MEPC 74, means we are closer to a common understanding of what
regulation 18.2 of MARPOL VI requires. First and foremost, completion of a
FONAR - or fuel oil non availability report - in the case of non-availability is
not a “get out of jail free” card. Rather, it is a structured way to gather and
present evidence that fuel oil was not available. It is still a non-compliance
situation for a ship to arrive at its next port with fuel oil of more than 0.50%
sulphur content.
The agreed upon MEPC circular providing the guidance outlines a
number of possible scenarios which the port state, flag state and ship
can agree to apply in such circumstances. This ranges from requiring de-
bunkering at the port to keeping the non-compliant fuel onboard until
next port in a controlled manner.
Importantly, the guidelines does not attempt to pre-judge what control
actions a port state may take in such circumstances, and it cannot be ruled
out that some port states may still penalise ships for arriving with non-
compliant fuel onboard in any case.
Sampling guidelines needs work
At MEPC 74 the Committee also agreed on a set of draft amendments to
MARPOL Annex VI to add regulatory requirements for on board sampling
points for both in-use samples and on board samples. The MEPC had
already, at an earlier meeting, approved guidelines for in-use sampling.
What is now a very important task for the next MEPC meeting is to
develop guidelines for on board sampling. This may not be a very easy task
to complete. Fuel oil storage tanks in ships are not equipped for taking
representative samples of their content. Some may resort to take samples
from sounding pipes and we strongly object to this unconventional
method as it is in no way representative of the content of a tank.
BIMCO will follow this work closely.
A lot of other things happened
The Committee adopted the 2019 Guidelines for Consistent
Implementation of the 0.50% Sulphur Limit under MARPOL Annex VI,
which addresses amongst others, properties of fuel oil, Port State Control,
Flag State inspections, and requirements for FONARs.
Several other issues were debated and considered by the MEPC during
the weeklong session, some of which we have written about on the
BIMCO website, and we will report on these in more detail as concrete
deliverables emerges at future sessions of the Committee.
https://
www.bimco.org/
55