OpenLobby.EU
Explore

International Chamber of Shipping

ICS

ICS is the principal international trade association for the shipping industry, representing all sectors and trades and comprising national shipowner associations, through which structure it can uniquely and legitimately claim to speak for the significant majority of international shipping (the “Industry”).

Lobbying Activity

Response to Updating the EU Emissions Trading System

26 Nov 2020

Comments by International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) Our full comments can be found here: https://www.ics-shipping.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Inception-Impact-Assessment-for-the-proposed-Amendment-of-the-EU-Emissions-Trading-System-Directive-2003-87-EC-1.pdf The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Inception Impact Assessment for the proposed Amendment of the EU Emissions Trading System (Directive 2003/87/EC), in particular the proposal to extend the EU ETS to maritime transport. ICS is the global trade association for ship operators representing more than 80% of the world merchant fleet with the shipping industry’s global regulators including the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO). ICS membership comprises the worlds’ national shipowners’ associations, including associations which are also members of the European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA). The global shipping industry is committed to complete decarbonisation of this international transportation sector and the achievement of the ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets already adopted by IMO Member States, including all EU States, as part of the IMO Initial Strategy on reducing GHG emissions from ships, which was agreed in 2018. In conjunction with ECSA, ICS has published a study by independent consultants: ‘Implications of Application of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to International Shipping, and Potential Benefits of Alternative Market-Based Measures (MBMs)’. ICS encourages the Commission to analyse and take careful account of the information and important issues covered by this ECSA/ICS study, as it takes its initiative forward. In addition, ICS wishes to make the following remarks which we hope the Commission will find useful. ICS strongly disagrees with the contention in the Inception Impact Assessment that the administrative burdens of requiring shipping companies to purchase and trade in carbon allowances will be limited by building on Regulation (EU) 2015/757 (the EU MRV Regulation). Emissions trading has been designed for sectors such as electricity generation, steel and cement production, and is completely inappropriate for application to a sector such as international shipping which largely comprises companies that are Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs). SMEs are a particular characteristic, inter alia, of the dry bulk and tanker sectors which comprise the majority of international shipping. A more pragmatic approach is therefore required, such as the European Parliament’s recommendation to continue leaving road transport outside the scope of the EU ETS. The different characteristics of the numerous ship types, contractual relationships and operators within the international shipping sector present a highly complex market that is unlikely to be effectively or appropriately addressed should the EU ETS be applied to shipping unilaterally. As matter of principle, the global shipping industry is opposed to any proposal for unilateral or regional regulation of international shipping which undermines the authority of IMO, which has been given responsibility by UNFCCC Parties for regulating the reduction of international shipping’s GHG emissions, as these cannot be attributed to individual national economies. As the industry’s global regulator, IMO is the only appropriate forum for the development of a market-based measure (MBM) applicable to international shipping. This is a position shared by most IMO Member States. ICS is very concerned, inter alia, that this EC initiative is being taken forward with little apparent understanding of the implications for the ongoing negotiations at IMO to eliminate GHG emissions from the sector globally, or the wider ramifications for the EU’s relationships with its trading partners. To access our full comments please see link above.
Read full response

Meeting with Andras Inotai (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella) and European Community Shipowners' Associations

27 Jun 2018 · Ocean Governance, UNCLOS BBNJ

Response to Revision of the Shipping MRV Regulation

18 Jul 2017

ICS welcomes revising the EU Shipping MRV Regulation in order align the EU MRV with the global IMO Data Collection System (DCS). The shipping industry is encouraged by the positive statements from the European Commission acknowledging the significant progress made by IMO Member States towards addressing GHG emissions from international shipping. With the support of the industry, IMO is developing a comprehensive strategy for the further reduction of GHG emissions from shipping. This includes an initial strategy (for adoption in 2018) which we are confident will include CO2 reduction objectives for the global sector consistent with the spirit of the Paris Agreement. This will be further refined using data from the IMO DCS, which will provide CO2 emissions data for the global fleet. Recital 34 of the EU MRV Regulation states that a global MRV system is preferable as it could be regarded as more effective due to its broader scope and that where an agreement on a global MRV system is reached the Commission should review the regulation with a view to aligning it to the global MRV system. This implies the European Commission should support establishing a single data collection system. Full alignment with the IMO DCS would minimise the burden to industry, avoid dual systems and create a unified international data base for ships CO2 emissions. Full alignment would be in line with the Commissions better regulation agenda which aims for targeted regulation in order to achieve objectives and bring benefits at minimum cost to the European economy. Full alignment means: - The EU MRV Regulation and IMO DCS will both require reporting of the same data; and - Data reported under the EU MRV Regulation will not be published; - IMO DCS verification procedures will be used within the EU MRV Regulation; - Use of identical monitoring plan templates and reporting formats, procedures and systems. The ‘No alignment’ policy option (Option A) is inappropriate as regard the burdensome and ineffective double monitoring and reporting requirements it will entail. Any ‘Partial alignment’ policy sub-options (option C.) will not serve the purpose of avoiding any double requirements. The following unilateral requirements should be considered as jeopardizing fair competition for the international shipping industry: - The metrics included in MRV Regulation are more detailed than those required by the IMO DCS. Apart from the administrative burden created, there is a concern among many IMO Member States that the EU may use this data to develop a unilateral operational efficiency index, which in turn might be used to penalise individual ships unfairly using abstract metrics that have no relation to the ship’s actual carbon efficiency or CO2 emissions. - The EU verification system requires the use of verifiers authorised by national accreditation bodies, rather than Recognized Organizations (primarily classification societies) authorised to work on behalf of Flag Administrations under IMO Conventions. - The EU MRV Regulation requires publication of the data received complete with company and individual ship identifiers, so that it can be used by third parties with the specific intent of affecting the commercial market. Under the IMO system, information submitted to IMO via the flag State is anonymous to third parties as the purpose is simply to establish the total CO2 emissions of the international shipping sector to facilitate further policy decision making. If the EU publishes detailed (and commercially sensitive) data about individual ships, this data may be misused, resulting in the unfair penalisation of ships and leading to market distortion. The EU MRV Regulation has to be 100% aligned to the IMO DCS. Aligning the EU MRV Regulation with the IMO DCS would help to avoid polarisation at IMO, stimulating further progress towards the ambitious global solution sought by the Commission and supported by the global and EU shipping industries.
Read full response

Response to Shipping Emissions Verification and Accreditation

25 Aug 2016

1. As shipping is a global industry and these regulations are intended to apply to ships of all flags that visit European ports, we have a general concern that recognition of accreditation bodies is limited to national accreditation bodies within Europe. There does not appear to be any reasonable justification for not recognising the national accreditation body of the ship's flag. 2. There is no clear process for a company to challenge the views of a verifier should that become necessary. 3. The requirement in article 4 for compulsory use of the model monitoring plan is unduly prescriptive and unnecessary. It should be sufficient for the verifier to confirm that the relevant information is provided and valid. Standard templates for the formal report and certification are reasonable but monitoring plans to be effective must be company and ship specific. 4. The benefit of the requirement in article 8 for specific additional review by an independent reviewer other than the verifier is unclear. The verifier must be accredited by a national accreditation body, so what is the added value of another layer of verification on top of company procedures, company quality certification including the requirements of the ISM Code and verification by the verifier rquired by these regulations? Surely this is covered by the use of accredited verifiers? 5. There is no clear timeframe for the resolution of any alleged non-conformities (article 7). 6. The requirements in Article 10 for large volumes of data and copies of specific ships' official documents are unnecessarily prescriptive and will lead to a requirement for the verifier, the company and the ship to manage very large quantities of information with no obvious benefit. The information required by the verifier should be agreed between the verifier and the shipowner to the extent that the verifier must see sufficient information to be comfortable to verify the data. However, a long prescriptive list of documents that contain a great deal of information that is secondary to the task in hand will simply add to the administrative burden of all parties. 7. Given the very practical nature of the data, the perceived benefit of the risk assessment required by article 11 is far from clear. The verifier will either find the data credible and consistent or not. 8. We are concerned that the requirement for verifiers to have access to ship-tracking services provides a de-facto requirement for the purchase of specific commercial services. The ship's log-books, are legal documents whose contents are covered by both international and national statute. They are already subject to national inspection and Port State Control. They should be accepted unless there is some specific objective evidence of a problem. 9. Article 16 provides a very prescriptive requirement for additional site visits. It is not clear what benefit this provides. If the verifier does not have the information and understanding required by paragraph 4 of this article then it will be necessary for the shipowner to arrange for the verifier to be provided with any necessary additional information by means that are acceptable to the verifier. This will be in the shipowners interest to have the verification completed. Furthermore it is good practice for any commercial auditor to agree with their clients in advance as to what documents and other information will need to be made available at the time of the audit. 10. Paragraph 4 of Article 10 is currently ambiguous. We propose that the final word 'responsibilities' of that paragraph should be replaced with 'period of control of the ship.'
Read full response

Response to Shipping Emissions Templates

25 Aug 2016

1. Standard templates are generally helpful. However, we consider that the level of detail contained in the draft templates is excessive and will lead to a hugely bureaucratic exercise for all concerned. Examples of this problem include multiple references to versions of procedures, identification of individual staff and identification of company IT systems. It would be unrealistic and unreasonable to require, for example, updating of monitoring plans when such secondary details change. Such detail is appropriately handled by general company quality systems. In the case of a ship, such matters are already fully addressed via the ship's safety management system and are subject to regular auditing by both company and Administration within the mandatory audits required by the ISM Code. 2.Instead of requiring a specific format for the template, it would be more appropriate, and more genuinely flexible to simply require that the appropriate information is included. 3. For ships calling at EU ports only on an occasional basis, the metrics derived from individual voyages or part voyages may be misleading. We suggest that on a voluntary basis such ships could have the option of choosing to include a more representative dataset. 4. The various tables in Annexes I and II to the implementing acts are in need of thorough review to remove all duplicated entries so that the same information does not need to be repeated. Our comment 2 above is also relevant in this context. There should be a requirement for all appropriate information to be available between the monitoring plan and the emissions report but duplication is an unnecessary burden on all stakeholders. 5. We propose that Documents of Compliance should be valid in either hard copy or in electronic form. Administrations and Classification societies are already moving in this direction in the interests of efficiency and reducing unnecessary administrative burden. 6. Further to points 2 and 4 above, in general, the tables C.2.2 to E.6 require complex administrative information to be provided for each detailed step of a process that in reality could be addressed by a single company document covering data collection. Such a document could be referenced with a single line of text. This should be a safety and environmental management issue to be handled within the company quality system and relevant management processes. The template should simply require the relevant parameters to be reported.
Read full response

Response to Shipping Emissions Cargo Carried

25 Aug 2016

1.The reference in the final sentence of paragraph 4 of the preamble to the delegated act to 'transport efficiency' should be deleted and replaced with 'efficiency metrics for this ship type'. We believe that the proposed alternative text more correctly reflects the nature of the data. Furthermore, the alternative text more closely follows the final report as accepted by the ESSF plenary. 2. We propose for consistency and clarity that the first sentence of paragraph 7 of the preamble is modified to read 'For other ship types not falling under any of the above categories or under the ship type definitions of the Regulation (EU) 2015/757.........' 3. The cargo carried for container ships is in need of some further clarification including the treatment of empty containers etc. 4. It is essential that following finalisation of the global IMO data collection system, the EU system should be fully aligned with the global system.
Read full response

Response to Shipping Emissions Monitoring Methods

25 Aug 2016

1. In item 1 of the Annex to the draft delegated act, some clarification is needed in the text to better explain that the 'appropriate' emissions factors for a bio-fuel will be specific to the fuel used on board, as opposed to selection of a value from the list in the current table. We have had some feed-back from the industry asking this particular question. 2. in item we suggest the time reference should either be to UTC or both UTC and GMT should be referenced i.e. GMT (UTC) as UTC is the more generic acronym. 3.We propose that distances and times should be holistic to include practices such as drifting before port arrival or when waiting for canal transit etc. 4. In order to prevent unnecessary complication and duplication of effort by ships staff, companies and flag Administrations, it is essential that the monitoring and recording processes are fully aligned with the global monitoring requirements as agreed at the International Maritime Organisation. 5. We understand that it was agreed during stakeholder consultation that default values for container weights could be used, but this does not appear in the current text of the delegating act. We suggest that this should be clarified either in the delegated act or in associated guidance. 6. We would like to express concern that the public consultation on this very complex topic has been so short. We understood that the stakeholder consultation group (ESSF MRV SUb-Group) would have been given some notice of the final consultation as discussed in that group at its last meeting.
Read full response