A

Dissertation

ON

“Impact Of Shipping On Global Environment ”A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE IN MASTER IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION IN PORT AND SHIPPING MANAGEMENT.

SUBMITTED BY:

Krishan Singh

Roll No: R190308020

MBA (PSM)

SUBMITTED TO

Mr. K.V Mohana Rao

Asst. Professor, CMES

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

Dehradun

2008-2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the very outset, I convey my special thanks to University of Petroleum and Energy Studies

that has given me this golden opportunity to study and conduct research on this project.

It give me immense pleasure to have prepared this project under the aegis of University of

Petroleum and Energy Studies and my special regards to my mentor and guide Mr. K.V.

Mohan Roa who helped in all the possible way in the making of the project.

I am thankful to Dr. V.L Narasimham & Mr. G. M. Rao who time to time guided us with their

valuable inputs about the project.

I am also highly grateful to our course coordinator Ms. A Laxman Rao who provided us with

exhaustive data and information about the Project and thus helped us in completing the project in

time. Last but not least, I express my close hearted feeling for all my colleagues who not only

helped but provided me the required information in the making of the project.

Krishan Singh

Roll No: R190308020

DECLARATION

I, Krishan Singh student of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies am pursuing Master of

Business Administration ( Port & Shipping Management ), here by declare that the project

report titled “Impact Of Shipping On Global Environment” , is an original work carried out by

me availing the guidance of my project guide and to me entire satisfaction to this report bears no

resemblance with any other report to any university or institute or published earlier.

Krishan Singh

Roll No: R190308020

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled “Impact Of Shipping On Global Environment". It’s a

bona research work of Krishan Singh (Roll No:R190308020 ) is original and has been done under

my supervision is partial fulfillment for the award of Masters of Business Administration. This

report or a part of this has not been submitted for the award of any other degree of with this

university or any other university. I am pleased to say that his performance during the period

was extremely satisfactory.

Guide: Mr. K.V. Mohana Rao

SCOPE

Considering the size of global shipping industry it is imperative that its impact on environment should also be taken into account very seriously. Being the most competitive mode of transport in terms of economy and environment friendly there is still a lot of scope for shipping industry needs to mend its ways to protect the environment. So far, it is the general view among the environmentalists, public and the industry itself that shipping industry has done much to clean up its act. It is estimated that the emissions from the shipping industry contributes to about 4% of the total global emissions but there have been reports that if the industry makes dedicated efforts then the emission level can be brought down to 80- 90% of its present level through various technical and regulatory means.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of the study is to understand how and to which extent the shipping industry affects the environment and what can be done to reduce the adverse impact of shipping on the environment. The paper identifies the management responses to environmental responsibilities by the shipping industry and port sector in terms of development of their respective policies and operations. The study also focuses on the various steps that the respective nations and the other industries can take themselves to make shipping more environment friendly rather than depending upon the various international bodies to reach a consensus and set up guidelines, as it would be too late by then to right the irreparable damage caused to the environment.

CONTENTS

PAGES

1. Introduction

2. Ways through shipping and port activities can affect the environment

3. How can Shipping Industry Reducing its Emissions?

3.1 Environmental legislation as it affects shipping and ports

3.2 National Legislations

3.3 Environmental efforts by the shipping industry

3.4 Other miscellaneous ways to contain emissions from the ships

4. Reasons for high emission from ships & measures to contain it

4.1 Reasons for high emission from ships

4.2 Cutting emission through technical and operational measures

5. Alternatives of shipping transportation

6. Benefit to cost analysis of reduced emissions

6.1 Impact on human health as a result of emissions from the shipping industry

6.2 How expensive and problematic such a step will be?

7. Impact of climate change on maritime industry

8. Conclusion

9. Abbreviations

10. Bibliography

1. INTRODUCTION

Shipping has been recently the target from the different quarters of the society to unable to contain the damage it causes to environment. With the growth of the world trade the shipping activities has increased considerably and this has been a cause of worry from the environment point of view. The increased size of the ships in itself makes them the potential environment danger in case of any accident as the cost of cleaning up the environment can run into billions of dollars.

The failure of meeting in Copenhagen on climate change in December 2009 has been a big blow to any expectation to reach a concrete agreement on seeing any major changes in dealing with climate change. The failure of the meeting has also raised some question regarding the commitment of the member countries.

There has been a substantial reduction in marine pollution over the last 15 years, especially with regard to the amount of oil spilled into the sea, despite a massive increase in world seaborne trade. While over the last few years the pollution due accidents and spillage has come down then at the same time there has been tremendous increase in air pollution due to increase trade activity around the world, according to an estimate the emissions from the international shipping sector have grown by more than 85% since 1990.

Excluded from commitments in the Kyoto protocol, responsibility for cutting emissions from the shipping sector was handed to the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO).But it has not come forward with any major binding measure in the twelve years since Kyoto.

In recent times, there has been an increasing interest on the impact of shipping on the environment. Paradoxically, while shipping is seen as contributing to pollution, the industry is also seen as an environmentally acceptable form of transport, particularly when compared to road and air.

Shipping and Port operations exert pressures on the marine environment. Shipping safety and marine pollution are inextricably linked and in addition to legislation regarding ship safety, environmental legislation, for ships and ports, at the local, regional, national, and international level is set to increase in the next ten years. An awareness of these legislations and the environmental issues should have a higher profile in maritime education and training.

Two general reasons to reduce ship emissions:

1. Ships contribute to problems TODAY

2. Growth in shipping makes problems worse TOMORROW

2. Ways shipping and port activities can affect the environment

There aret wo main ways through which shipping and port activities can affect the marine environment are as follows:

(a) Accidental impacts - e.g. oil spill resulting from collision or grounding/stranding, loss of deck cargo.

(b) Operational impacts - The impacts of ships and ports operations generally tend to be chronic and are often controlled by legislation. e.g. toxic effect of antifouling paints, discharge of Sox and Nox emissions.

Accidental Risks

Marine accidents, groundings, or stranding may result in localized damage and disturbance to the seabed, but may also lead to loss of:

(1) Spillage - Oil, either as cargo or bunkering fuel, or Hazardous cargo, including noxious liquid substances and harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form e.g. pesticides, liquefied gas. The effects will be unique to the situation but the fuel or cargo will have a wide range of toxic or physical effects on marine habitats. It is thought that Birds, mollusks and fish eggs and larvae are particularly at risk from accidental spills.

(2) Collision with marine mammals - While not common, collisions do occur and are particularly associated with high-speed craft. In addition, propeller injuries have been reported on marine mammals.

Operational Risks

(1) Operational oil spills – Operational spills are usually small but repetitive. The effects of these spills are chronic and localized. Impacts on marine habitats, include, physical disturbance, toxic to sensitive species and organic enrichment of the sediments.

Oil spills can generally be “accidental” spills, usually large, of either cargo or bunker fuel, or, operational oil spills. Operational spills are usually small but repetitive. The effects of these spills are chronic and localized. Impacts on marine habitats, include, physical disturbance, toxic to sensitive species and organic enrichment of the sediments. Annual operational spills of oil (in tonnes) have been estimated as-

Non-tanker accidents – 750-200 Operational discharge 1080-600

Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine environmental Protection (GESAMP) data, collected between 1973 and 1981, suggests that 400-300 thousand tonnes of oil entered the world’s oceans by tanker accidents during that period.Oil spills can seriously affect fisheries and shell fisheries either by a toxic effect or by tainting the marketable fish.

(2) Emissions -Sox, Nox, CFC’s and CO2 are all regarded as contributing to atmospheric pollution leading to global warming, poor air quality and acid rain. The input of Sulphur and Nitrogen Oxide by shipping is small in global terms. However, in regions with a large volume of shipping traffic there may be significant regional problems.

Sulphur dioxide, SO2 – what is the problem?

• Directly dependent on sulphur content of fuel

• Significant contribution from shipping

• Heavy impact on acidification of land and water

• Increases corrosion

• Affect human health

Nitrogen oxides, NOx – what is the problem?

• Created at high temperature peaks during combustion

• Significant contribution from shipping

• Contributes to acidification of land and sea, eutrophication, formation of ground-level ozone, Affects human health

(3) Antifouling coatings – The biocides e.g. TBT (Tributyl tin), Triazines, in some antifouling coatings can leach into the surrounding water and accumulate in benthic organisms and sediments. The nature of the toxicity is chronic and can affect such functions as morphology, growth, and reproduction of a range of marine species.

(4) Discharge of ballast water – The introduction of non-native species via the discharge of ballast water is well documented. These species can be detrimental to local species through competition for space or nutrients or they can be toxic and affect local fisheries.

Additionally, some toxic or harmful species are known to be transported in ballast water. Toxins can be accumulated by shellfish can be harmful to the health of human and marine mammals e.g. Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP).

The vibrio bacterium causing Cholera is also known to be transported in ballast tanks and represents a human health hazard.

Ballast water – what is the problem?

• 3-5 billion tons of ballast water are being transferred around the globe every year

• About 7,000 species are carried around each day

• Invasion by marine species is one of the four greatest threats to our oceans

(5) Noise – There are some evidence that vessel noise can disturb marine mammals and fish. The noise pollution can adversely impact on following activities of marine life:

Communication among each other Navigation Find food and prey Avoid predators and other Feeding and breeding

New propellers design concepts, hub cups, fins, and ducts to improve wake flow can reduce noise without reducing propulsive efficiency. Cost-effective technologies exist to reduce noise from commercial ships Applied to a 10 % of global merchant fleet they could achieve global noise reduction targets

(6) Waste disposal at sea

Marine mammals and birds can swallow or become entangled in plastic litter form ships, often leading to fatalities. Distinguishing between ship or land garbage is difficult. Beachwatch 96 (UK) estimated that shipping generated some 17.4% of the total debris collected on UK beaches.

(7) Dredging and disposal of soil – Maintenance and capital dredging disturbs the seabed leading to damage of benthic ecosystems (physical and smothering by sediment), increased levels of suspended sediments and attendant pollutants/nutrients in the water column.

In addition, the disposal the dredge soil can also damage other benthic communities by smothering and/or the uptake of contaminants, nutrients etc, resuspended into the water column from the dredged sediment.

(8) Ship Breaking

The process of ship breaking involves a number rules and regulations mainly because of the amount of hazardous materials a ship contain.

Scrapping a ship generates huge amount of waste – some useful while some extremely harmful. Most of the harmful wastes are extremely toxic hazardous substances, both for human and environment. Breaking a ship made of hazardous materials is an environmentalist’s nightmare. A ship breaking process involves strict regulations and laws, which if broken, lead to millions of dollars in fine depending on the gravity of the accident. It is for this reason that many rich countries such as European nations send their ships to the shipyards of developing countries. There are many advantages drives them to doing this. The main are:

•Developing countries have less stringent environmental rules.

•Highly skillful Labor is available

•Advantage of Cheap labor

•No hassles related to disposing hazardous materials.

•The overall ship breaking can be done in less than half the rate.

Keeping these advantages in mind, France once sent Clemenceau to India, a ship full of highly hazardous materials. If the same ship were to be scrapped at her own ports, it would have

involved high environmental costs, excluding the occupational hazards it would create. It is quite a worrying phenomenon that many companies overlook such aspects and send such high toxic vessels to developing countries in spite of knowing the environmental and occupational hazards attached to it, simply for saving costs.

Now let us look at the main constituents of these hazardous materials. The main toxics related to ship breaking are:

•Asbestos

•PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)

•TBT (tributyltin)

•Lead and mercury

•Waste waters

So how do these materials prove harmful?

(a)The Toxics - A general practice of the shipyards of developing countries is that ship breaking is done mainly on the seacoast or at wide river-mouths mainly because these countries do not have proper docking facilities. The hazardous materials mix up with the cesspool and Flow into the sea or river water. Most of these materials are washed away to the shores and surrounding coastal areas by the waves, which leads to contamination of the soil and disturbance in the marine Eco system.

Most of these shipyards have huge garbage dumps just near the seacoasts. These garbage dumps contain toxic metal waste and persistent organic pollutants (pops) which pollutes the land and cause harm to the people living in the adjoining coastal areas.

(b)Asbestos - It is considered the main contributor for environmental pollution. Asbestos have many harmful effects on human beings. These asbestos when finds a way to the sea water sticks to the bodies of the fishes and other organisms, consumed by the human beings. This way it enters the food cycle and causes detrimental effects both on marine and human life.

(c)PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) - PCBs also find way into the food cycle in the same way as asbestos do. The disposal of PCBs is a primary environmental concern and due to this reason its manufacturing was banned in 1979. However, before the ban was brought into action, around 1.5 million pounds of PCB was already sold in United States alone and thus it is still found in many older ships.

(d)Water Waste - This is the root cause of all evils. Water waste from the ship breaking is found in number of forms. Ballast and bilge water during the time of breaking often finds its way to the sea if proper arrangements to block its flow are not made. The ballast water often contains oil, biocides, and heavy metal particles such as iron, copper, chromium, and chemical constituents, while bilge water contains pollutants such as oil and grease, inorganic salts, metal particles (arsenic, copper, chromium, lead, and mercury) and even toxic chemicals. Thus, both bilge and ballast are sometimes non-avoidable pollutants, which neither can be treated nor rectified by environmental degradation.

3. How can Shipping Industry Reducing its Emissions?

There are mainly three ways through which the impact of shipping on the environment can be reduced and these three ways are –

(a) Legislations by the international governing bodies

(b) Legislations by the various national bodies

(c) Shipping industry’s own initiative

(d) & miscellaneous other ways of reducing emissions

3.1 Environmental legislation as it affects shipping and ports

As stated earlier, shipping safety and marine pollution are inextricably linked. Some environmental legislation deals directly with environmental protection e.g. MARPOL, while other instruments are primarily aimed at ship and human safety, e.g. SOLAS, but indirectly have an influence on environmental safety.

(A) International Legislations

The Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International maritime Organization (IMO) is committed to implement regulation in order to mitigate the effects of shipping on the environment.

IMO’s Role

IMO is the apex body to take all decision on all international legislation related to shipping activities. The impressive track record of IMO is demonstrated by the success of the MARPOL Convention in contributing to the substantial reduction of pollution especially oil pollution since it entered into force.

(A) SOLAS Convention

The SOLAS Convention in its successive forms is generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of merchant ships. The first version was adopted in 1914, in response to the Titanic disaster, the second in 1929, the third in 1948 and the fourth in 1960.

The 1960 Convention - which was adopted on 17 June 1960 and entered into force on 26 May 1965 - was the first major task for IMO after the Organization's creation and it represented a considerable step forward in modernizing regulations and in keeping pace with technical developments in the shipping industry.

The main objective of the SOLAS Convention is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment and operation of ships, compatible with their safety. Flag States are responsible for ensuring that ships under their flag comply with its requirements, and a number of certificates are prescribed in the Convention as proof that this has been done.

Control provisions also allow Contracting Governments to inspect ships of other Contracting States if there are clear grounds for believing that the ship and its equipment do not substantially comply with the requirements of the Convention - this procedure is known as port State control.The current SOLAS Convention includes Articles setting out general obligations, amendment procedure and so on, followed by an Annex divided into 12 Chapters.

(B) The MARPOL Convention - was adopted in 1973 and covers the regulation of pollution of the seas by shipping. Originally intended to cover oil pollution as OILPOL and subsequently MARPOL, it now covers many other contaminants:

Annex 1 - Prevention of Pollution by Ships

It specifies regulations to minimise oil pollution caused by ships, particularly oil tankers. Controls are specified on the amounts of oil that can be discharged at sea and discharges in "special areas" are prohibited. Standards are established for segregated ballast tanks and onboard equipment such as crude oil washing devices, oily-water separators, pumping and discharge systems, and monitoring devices. In addition to the requirement for shipboard oil pollution emergency plans, amendments to Annex 1 make it mandatory for new oil tankers to be constructed with double hulls in order to limit the amount of oil likely to escape into the sea in the event of a grounding or collision.

Annex II: Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances

It deals with regulations pertaining to the carriage and discharge of chemicals carried at sea by bulk chemical carriers. Discharge criteria are established for different types of chemicals in different operating environments, and standards have been established for tank washing and associated pumping and piping arrangements

Annex III: Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances in Packaged Form

It deals with harmful substances carried in packaged forms including freight containers and portable tanks. It provides guidelines for packaging, labelling, stowage and documentation of such substances.

Annex IV: Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships

It contains requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage

Annex V: Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships

It deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances from land and the manner which they may be disposed of. Annex V requires governments to provide garbage reception facilities at ports and terminals and imposes a complete ban on the dumping of all forms of plastic into the sea.

Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships

It was adopted with the aim of reducing emissions of airborne pollutants by ships. It includes a global cap on the sulphur content of bunker fuel and limits CFC, SOx and NOx emissions and the incineration of certain products.

MARPOL Annexes I and II (governing prevention of oil and chemical pollution) have been ratified by 149 nations covering over 99% of the world merchant fleet. The recent radical amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (atmospheric pollution) were only adopted in October 2008, but already cover nearly 84% of the world merchant fleet. The 2008 amendments to MARPOL Annex VI will, inter alia, reduce the sulphur content in fuel to just 0.1% in Emission Control Areas in 2015 compared to 1.5% permitted today.

The increasing size of many ships is also expected to improve fuel efficiency. In addition, operational measures (e.g. better speed management throughout the course of a voyage) are also expected to reduce fuel consumption and are addressed in detail by the new Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan that has been developed at IMO, with assistance from the industry.

Shipping companies have a very strong incentive to reduce their fuel consumption and thus reduce their CO2 emissions: bunker costs represent an increasingly significant proportion of ships’ operational expenses, having increased by about 300% in the last 5 years.

Why Its Diffucult To Impose Emission Targets On Shipping ?

International shipping does not lend itself to inclusion as part of national emission targets. A ship may be registered in one country while the beneficial owner of the ship may be located in another. The cargo carried by the ship will be of economic benefit to a variety of different importing and exporting nations. Most ships do not follow fixed routes and they will collect and deliver varying amounts of cargo in a large number of different nations throughout the course of a voyage. Moreover, the nationality of the entities exporting and importing the cargo carried will vary considerably from voyage to voyage.

Shipping is a uniquely international industry that can only work efficiently when operating within a framework of uniform global regulation that applies equally to all ships regardless of flag.

(B) International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG), 1965

It is estimated that more than 50% of packaged goods and bulk cargoes transported by sea today can be regarded as dangerous, hazardous, or harmful to the environment according to IMO criteria. It is imperative to handle cargos which comes under dangerous goods category because

if improperly handled these goods can result in major accidently that can ultimately can cause damage to the environment.

Since its introduction in 1965, the IMDG Code has undergone many changes, both in appearance and content to keep pace with the ever-changing needs of industry. So far, some 51 Administrations, whose combined merchant fleets total 80% of the world's gross tonnage, have informed IMO that they are applying the IMDG Code (see Annex 1). The legal system of each country determines in detail whether the IMDG Code becomes mandatory or is applied as a recommendation.

Each substance, material or article which is listed in the IMDG Code is referred to by a proper shipping name (correct technical name) together with a four-digit UN Number assigned to the goods by the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Each package containing dangerous goods should be durably marked with the proper shipping name of the contents, and, when assigned, the corresponding UN Number preceded by the letters "UN".

Dangerous goods can be classified into following classes

Class 1 - Explosives

These are among the most dangerous of all goods carried by sea and the precautions outlined in this class of the Code are particularly stringent.

Class 2 - Gases

Class 3 - Flammable liquids

Class 4 - Flammable solids or substances

Class 5 - Oxidizing substances

Class 6 - Toxic and infectious substances

Class 7 - Radioactive materials

Class 8 – Corrosives

Class 9 - Miscellaneous dangerous substances and articles

(C) International Convention on Load Lines 1966, as amended, and its 1988 Protocol, (LOADLINES 66/88)

The stability of ships can be seriously affected by overloading, especially if the cargo shifts during the course of the voyage and the practice of marking ships to indicate how low they may safely rest in the water when loaded goes back several centuries.

The Load Lines Convention contains detailed regulations on the assignment of the freeboard (the vertical distance between the top of the hull and the waterline) and the specific limitations to which different types of ships may be loaded. Several lines are painted on the ship, above and

below the central freeboard line - because ships may be loaded to a greater or lesser degree depending on the zone and season, as potential hazards vary.

(D) ISM

The ISM Code provides an International standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention.

The purpose of ISM Code is:

To ensure Safety at Sea To prevent human injury or loss of life To avoid damage to the environment and to the ship.

SOLAS adopted the ISM Code in 1994 and incorporated it into chapter IX. By 1998 much of the commercial shipping community was required to be in compliance with the ISM code. By 2002 almost all of the international shipping community was required to comply with the ISM Code.

In order to comply with the ISM Code, each ship class must have a working Safety Management System (SMS). Each SMS consists of the following elements:

Commitment from top management A Top Tier Policy Manual A Procedures Manual that documents what is done onboard the ship Procedures for conducting both internal and external audits to ensure the ship is doing

what is documented in the Procedures Manual A Designated Person to serve as the link between the ships and shore staff A system for identifying where actual practices do not meet those that are documented

and for implementing associated corrective action Regular management reviews

Another part of the ISM is the mandatory Planned Maintenance System which is used as a tool maintaining the vessel according to the specified maintenance intervals.

Each ISM compliant ship is inspected regularly by classification society to check the effectiveness of their SMS. Once classification society verifies the SMS is working and effectively implemented, the ship is issued a Safety Management Certificate. Comments from the classification society and from the ship are incorporated into the SMS by headquarters.

(C) International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, 1978 (STCW Convention) – Maritime accidents as well as personal injuries to the seafarers can be drastically reduced by adequate training of people who are associated with shipping industry. The proper training helps to This will only require the small investment in the training and education of seafarers.

The STCW Code has two parts. Part A contains "mandatory standards". In other words, each section in Part A is specifically referred to in the regulation with the same number, and the standards set out in Part A are required as if they were included in the regulation itself. Part B of the STCW Code, on the other hand, contains "Recommended Guidance" which is not referred to in the regulations and is not mandatory.

The Articles in the STCW Convention have remained unchanged since they were originally adopted in 1978. The 1995 Amendments to the convention only affect the Annex to the convention

The original Annex had six chapters. The 1995 Amendments expanded the annex to eight chapters, as follows:

1978 Annex 1995 Annex

I. General Provisions with 4 regulations General Provisions with 15 regulations

II. Master -- Deck Department Master and Deck Department

III. Engine Department Engine Department

IV. Radio Department Radiocommunication and Radio Personnel

V. Special Requirements For Tankers Special Training for Personnel on Certain Types of Ships

VI. Proficiency in Survival Craft Emergency, Occupational Safety, Medical Care and Survival Functions

VII. [Not included] Alternative Certification

VIII. [Not included - although watchkeeping was discussed in other annexes]

Watchkeeping

(D) Wreck Removal Convention

The Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (WRC) was adopted by an IMO Diplomatic Conference on 18 May 2007. The new Convention establishes a sound legal basis for States to remove, or have removed, from their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) wrecks that may pose a hazard to navigation or, because of the nature of their cargo, a threat to marine and coastal environments. The WRC makes ship-owners financially liable for the costs of removing hazardous wrecks and to this end requires them to take out insurance or provide other financial security to cover the costs of wreck removal.

(E) The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009

The Convention is aimed at ensuring that ships, when being recycled after reaching the end of their operational lives, do not pose any unnecessary risk to human health and safety or to the environment. The new Convention intends to address all the issues around ship recycling, including the fact that ships sold for scrapping may contain environmentally hazardous substances such as asbestos, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, ozone-depleting substances and others.

It will address concerns raised about the working and environmental conditions at many of the world's ship recycling locations.

The Convention will require ships to have an Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM). The IHM is a ship specific document that lists all the materials onboard a ship that may be hazardous to people's health or the environment, and that require careful handling or special awareness.

The Hong Kong convention will make an IHM mandatory for all new and existing ships above 500GT, which covers all materials used for construction and equipment of ships. The focus lies on materials which have already been identified as hazardous internationally but which might still be found in shipyards, ship-repair yards, and especially onboard ships. Therefore the main focus for the shipping industry is the

preparation and maintenance of an IHM for each vessel in order to reduce the risks for crewmembers and, in line with the main focus of the Hong Kong Convention, workers in recycling yards by providing a sound source of information.

The Hong Kong Convention also creates a new obligation for ship owners to sell their redundant ships only to recycling facilities that meet the standards and have been authorized by the national "competent authorities". Ship recycling facilities will be required to prepare a "Ship Recycling Plan", to specify the processes how the specific ship will be recycled, depending on its particulars and its IHM. All involved parties will be required to take effective measures to ensure that ship recycling facilities under their jurisdiction comply with the Hong Kong Convention.

(F) CLC & Fund Convention

The international compensation regime for damage caused by spills of persistent oil from laden tankers was based initially on two IMO conventions –

1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1969 CLC) 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for

Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (1971 Fund Convention).

This 'old' regime was amended in 1992 by two protocols, which increased the compensation limits and broadened the scope of the original conventions. In October 2000 agreement was reached on increasing the limits of the 1992 CLC and Fund Convention by a little over 50% with effect from 1st November 2003. In May 2003 a Supplementary (‘third tier’) Fund was established at the IMO through a new protocol that increases the amount of compensation in States that ratify it to about US$1.2 million (including the amounts paid under the 1992 CLC and Fund Convention).

The 1969 CLC entered into force in 1975 and lays down the principle of strict liability (i.e. liability even in the absence of fault) for tanker owners and creates a system of compulsory liability insurance. Claims for compensation for oil pollution damage (including clean-up costs) may be brought against the owner of the tanker which caused the damage or directly against the owner's P&I insurer. The tanker owner is normally entitled to limit his liability to an amount which is linked to the tonnage of the tanker causing the pollution.

The 1971 Fund Convention provided for the payment of supplementary compensation to those who could not obtain full compensation for oil pollution damage under the 1969 CLC.

In 1992, a Diplomatic Conference adopted two protocols amending the 1969 CLC and 1971 Fund Convention, which became the 1992 CLC and 1992 Fund Convention. These 1992 Conventions, which provide higher limits of compensation and a wider scope of application than the original conventions, entered into force on 30th May 1996. As in the case of the original conventions, the tanker owner and P&I insurer are liable for the payment of compensation under the 1992 CLC, and oil receivers in countries that are party to the 1992 Fund Convention are liable for the payment of supplementary compensation. As more States ratified or acceded to the 1992 Conventions, the original conventions rapidly lost significance and the 1971 Fund Convention was terminated altogether on 24th May 2002.

Supplementary Fund Protocol

A new Protocol creating a Supplementary Fund that improves the international regime for compensation of victims of oil pollution from oil tankers entered into force internationally in March 2005.

The Supplementary Fund does not replace the existing Fund (the '1992 Fund') but makes available additional compensation to victims in the States that accede to the Protocol. The total amount of compensation available for each incident in the States that are Members of the Supplementary Fund is approximately a $1,500 million. For States that decide to remain in the 1992 Fund, the total amount of compensation available following an incident will be approximately a $ 405 million.

(G) Convention regarding removal of single hull ships

It was the Exxon Valdez tanker accident which led to one of the most important changes to be made to Annex I of the Convention since the adoption of the 1978 Protocol.

In March 1989, the Exxon Valdez, loaded with 1,264,155 barrels of crude oil, ran aground in the northeastern portion of Prince William Sound, spilling about one-fifth of its cargo. It was the largest crude spill, to date, in US waters and - probably the one which gained the biggest media coverage to date. The U.S. public demanded action - and duly got it.

The United States introduced its Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), making it mandatory for all tankers calling at U.S. ports to have double hulls.

The United States also came to IMO, calling for double hulls this time to be made a mandatory requirement of MARPOL. The implications of the Exxon Valdez spill were not lost on IMO Members, and the MEPC.

Eventually, the MEPC agreed to make mandatory double hulls or alternative designs "provided that such methods ensure the same level of protection against pollution in the event of a collision or stranding". 1992 “double hull” amendments

The phase-out schedule is now as follows:

Category of oil tanker Date or year

Category 1 - oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 tons deadweight and above carrying other oils, which do not comply with the requirements for protectively located segregated ballast tanks (commonly known as Pre-MARPOL tankers)

5 April 2005 for ships delivered on 5 April 1982 or earlierAnniversary date in 2005 for ships delivered after 5 April 1982

Category 2 - oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 tons deadweight and above carrying other oils, which do comply with the protectively located segregated ballast tank requirements (MARPOL tankers)andCategory 3 - oil tankers of 5,000 tons deadweight and above but less than the tonnage specified for Category 1 and 2 tankers

5 April 2005 for ships delivered on 5 April 1977 or earlierAnniversary date in 2005 for ships delivered after 5 April 1977 but before 1 January 1978Anniversary date in 2006 for ships delivered in 1978 and 1979Anniversary date in 2007 for ships delivered in 1980 and 1981 Anniversary date in 2008 for ships delivered in 1982Anniversary date in 2009 for ships delivered in 1983Anniversary date in 2010 for ships delivered in 1984 or later

3.2 National Legislations

Many countries and regions are now adopting their own legislation with regard to the protection of the marine environment. Examples include:

(1)From 1 July 2001, Australia has new mandatory ballast water requirements. Any ship arriving in Australian waters will be required to undergo a ballast water risk assessment and then undertake an approved management option. Interestingly the legislative framework for the new requirements is under the Quarantine Act, 1908 (AFFA, 2001)

(2)Now vessels delivering oil to USA is required to equipped with double hull. Any single hull vessel to remain 100 miles from the coast and it will be lightered to double hull tankers that will deliver it to US Ports.

(3) EU prepares for unilateral shipping action

Plans for the EU to set greenhouse gas emission limits for ships using EU Commission published a new report looking at various ways of charging for maritime emissions. It concludes that

emissions trading is the best and most feasible way of providing a financial incentive for reducing shipping's contribution to global warming.

According to this report the ship owners would be responsible for reporting fuel use and obtaining emissions credits. It said emissions trading could reduce emissions by up to 47% by 2030, most of which would cost the shipping industry nothing. But it also said that if ship owners only adopted cost-neutral measures, emissions from shipping would be 39% higher in 2030 than they were in 2007.

3.3 Environmental efforts by the shipping industry

It is important that the shipping companies themselves realize the damage their shipping activities cause to the environment and therefore should invest a part of theirs earning in the research and development so that the new ways can be found to carry shipping activity without considerably damaging the environment.

1. NYK (Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha)Japan’s largest shipping company, Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, is positioning itself to reduce their transport & logistics emissions. In a breakthrough in 2008, Nippon Yusen launched the world’s first solar power- assisted cargo carrier, in partnership with Nippon Oil. The ship, Auriga Leader, is using solar-powered electricity to help transport up to 6,200 cars for Toyota Motor Corporation. The solar power generator consists of 328 solar panels and can produce 40 kilowatts of power. Although it only generates 0.2% of the 60,213-ton ship’s energy needs, it can supply 6.5% of electricity used and reduce carbon emissions by up to 2%. Nippon Yusen aims to develop large solar-powered vessels and plans to install a generator that could contribute up to 2% of a ship’s power by 2010.Nippon Yusen is also developing carriers that would halve energy use and carbon emissions per ton-mile compared with existing vessels. The new ships are expected to be ready in 2010. Meanwhile, Nippon Yusen is also increasing the efficiency of propulsion and fuel injection using technologies developed together with the company’s think tank, the Monohakobi Technology Institute. Nippon Yusen has set a goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by at least 10% per ton-mile on 2006 levels by 2013.

Super Eco Ship 2030- The NYK ‘Super Eco Ship 2030’ will produce 70% less CO2 emissions than current vessels by the use of some very innovative design. The vessel will be powered by Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) fuel cells which produce 30% less CO2 than comparable marine

diesels, whilst the 2030 will also have 31,000 m² of solar panels in addition to retractable sails. The company states it wishes to have in service by 2030. The ship also have 4 pair of sails to gain advantage of wind energy.NYK state that they plan for their fleet to produce zero emissions by 2050.

2. AP MOLLER-MAERSK

The Group aims to improve energy and carbon efficiency through measures including a waste heat recovery system that allows heat to be used for propulsion on 23 new ships. However, not all of the company’s new vessels are equipped with the system due to lack of capacity in shipyards to install the systems “at a cost justifying implementation”. As well as addressing its direct emissions from operations, the Group is helping customers to reduce carbon emissions in their transport & logistics supply chains. Maersk Logistics has developed a Supply Chain Carbon Check to map product emissions from the factory-gate to delivery at the point of sale, including shipping emissions. It then simulates alternative scenarios to recommend opportunities to reduce emissions and exposure to carbon costs. Recommendations could include a shift in transport modes from airfreight to more carbon-efficient shipping, for instance Maersk says that up to 15 global clients currently use the tool, which has led to approximately 10% cuts in bothCarbon emissions and costs.

3. Hapag Lloyd

Electronic Fuel Injection And Valve ControlHapag-Lloyd is the first shipping line to deploy the electronic fuel injection and valve control on the main engines on its container vessels. As a result, the engines burn fuel cleanly and reduce nitrogen oxide exhaust. This leads to a higher level of total efficiency in addition to reducing fuel consumption and hence, total emissions. Technical improvements alone have cut fuel requirements by some 30% on modern ships’ engines since the late Sixties. The MAN ship engines in our latest newbuildings on the “Colombo Express” class (8,750 TEU) are among the most economical engines with the highest efficiency currently on the market. affect of gases like CFC(chlorofluorocarbon) used in reefer containers

4. Mitsui O.S.K Lines

(a)PBCF (Propeller Boss Cap Fins) System

The PBCF has been developed jointly by Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, West Japan Fluid Engineering Laboratory Co. Ltd., and Mikado Propeller Co. Ltd. PBCF is a device which is concerned with the recovery of energy from the flow out energy in propeller hub vortex.

A ship’s propeller moves the vessel by changing rotational energy into propulsion energy. Since water is twisted when the prop rotates, a vortex always occurs behind the propeller. This results in energy loss in the propulsion of the vessel. The MOL-developed Propeller Boss Cap Fins (PBCF) has the same number of fins as propeller, and is installed at the rear of the propeller hub. The PBCF is capable of enhancing propulsion efficiency by effectively breaking up the strong hub vortex. The result is a 4-5% improvement in fuel efficiency (which also reduces CO2, NOx, and SOx emissions) at the same speed. Since development started in 1987, all types of vessels

worldwide have been fitted with the PBCF system. The accumulated number of vessels ordered PBCF system topped 1,000 in January 2006. The investment would be recovered within extends from several months to 1 year.

Benefits

Saves 5% in fuel oil Boosts speed by 2% Fixes torque rich problem Reduces stern vibrations Reduces propeller noise Fixes rudder erosion problem

As results it has have won the Japan Institute of Marine Engineering Award, Society of Naval Architects of Japan Award, and Outstanding Energy Conservation Award of the Japan Machinery Federation.

Under the current importance of the global environmental problems, the demand for the PBCF has been continually growing up from not only as an energy saving device but also as an environment-friendly product.

(b) Reducing Wind Resistance To Improve Energy EfficiencyThe shape of conventional car carriers makes them more susceptible than other ships to wind resistance and a phenomenon called “leeway,” in which the wind pushes the vessel from the side. Naturally, that reduces fuel efficiency. MOL teamed up with Universal Shipbuilding Corp. and Osaka University to develop a car carrier with a wind resistance reducing design. The company launched this innovative pure car and truck carrier (PCTC), called the Courageous Ace, in March 2003. By reducing the wind resistance from the bow with an aerodynamically rounded and beveled bow line and having wind channels along the sides at the top of the garage deck, this

helps vessel to maintain a straighter course than before. It captured the 2003 “Ship of the Year” award from the Society of Naval Architects of Japan (SNAJ). Shortly after company launched wind/water resistance reducing design PCTCs with various modifications.The Utopia Ace, launched in July 2004, features a hyper-slim energy-saving design under the waterline, reducing resistance by 8% compared to a conventionally designed vessel. Additionally, the ventilation covers on the shipside decks feature aerodynamically rounded sides, to further cut wind resistance. This Utopia Ace received the Ship of the Year Award 2005 from Lloyd’s Register in the U.K. in February 2005.

Courageous Ace Utopia Ace

(c)Innovative Fuel Tank Construction Design

Car carriers normally have more than 10 decks to hold automobiles. Fuel tanks used

to be placed under the lowest car deck, but on the car carriers MOL launched starting

in 2004, the tank is placed where the lowest car deck would normally be, in effect

creating a double hull.

3.4 Other miscellaneous ways to contain emissions from the ships

There are various miscellaneous ways possible to cut emissions from ships and their activities, which are as follows:

(a) Reinforcing vessel traffic monitoring

Europe’s sea lanes are among the busiest in the world. Sophisticated, well-run traffic monitoring systems are therefore vital to avoid collisions and to monitor potentially dangerous cargoes. The Commission is committed to supporting the development of new technology in this area,and has been at the forefront of establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring system called SafeSeaNet . The current package aims to improve traffic monitoring legislation, by ensuring that all relevant Member States are connected to SafeSeaNet, and that fishing vessels over 15 metres long are fitted with an automatic identification system (AIS) to reduce the risk of collisions.The proposal will also seek to direct vessels in distress to the nearest suitable ‘place of refuge’, in which the danger to life and the environment may be minimised.

Safeseanet - SafeSeaNet is an electronic data information system that allows authorities to monitor the movement of ships carrying potentially hazardous cargo. Member States can share information about potentially high-risk vessels, ensuring that they are better prepared to respond to problems. The system will also provide authorities with accurate arrival times and details of waste-handling needs.

(b) Responsibility of Flag States

The flag states have had a major role to play in the safe and environment friendly shipping. It is the responsibility of the flag states to ensure that the ship that are registered under their flag follow international bodies guidelines and conventions. However, some flag states are not fulfilling their function of ensuring that the ship-owners complies with his obligations. In particular, the growth of registers which have no capability and even less intention of monitoring compliance as the registration of ships help them earn revenue and this has led to considerable criticism.

(c) Port State Control

Port State Control as a concept is developing worldwide as a means of dealing with the problem of substandard shipping. Port State Control is the process by which a nation exercises authority over foreign ships when those ships are in waters subject to its jurisdiction. The right to do this is derived from both domestic and international law. A nation may enact its own laws, imposing requirements on foreign ships trading in its waters, and nations which are party to certain international conventions are empowered to verify that ships of other nations operating in their waters comply with the obligations set out in those conventions.

The stated purpose of Port State Control in its various forms is to identify and eliminate ships which do not comply with internationally accepted standards as well as the domestic regulations of the state concerned. When ships are not in substantial compliance, the relevant agency of the inspecting state may impose controls to ensure that they are brought into compliance.

(d) Improve port reception facilities for ship waste and cargo residues

At all the ports around the world the waste reception and cargo residues are not in proper order, especially in case of developing and undeveloped countries where due to lack of investment port reception facilities are not up to the mark in to receive waste from ships and treat them in an environmentally friendly way, this leads to the disposal of wastes in way that is harmful to the environment.

Action plan to tackle the inadequacy of port reception facilities

The Plan contains a list of proposed work items to be undertaken by IMO with the aim of improving the provision and use of adequate port reception facilities

provision of information on port reception facilities identification of any technical problems encountered during the transfer of waste between

ship and shore the standardization of garbage segregation requirements and containment identification review of the type and amount of wastes generated on board and the type and capacity of

port reception facilities

(f) Stiffer sanctions for ship-sourced pollution

Sanctions including criminal charges can be applied to anyone – including shipowners, ship managers, charterers, classification societies, etc. who cause pollution, either intentionally, recklessly or by serious negligence.

(g) Responsibilities of Government and ports

There are many examples where the government authorities have acted irresponsibly and tried to absolve themselves from blame in case of an accident. The two most prominent examples in which should government authorities had responsibly major accidents could have been averted are case of ERIKA & PRESTIGE.

I. Erika Case - Erika, a laden tanker that was not allowed to seek shelter at a French port of refuge in December 1999 . She was sent back out in a storm and, and as a result, broke up and spilled 25,000 tonnes of viscous fuel oil on France’s Atlantic coast.

II. Prestige Case – She was fully laden with fuel oil and ran into a bad storm off the coast of N.W Spain in November 2002. The master feared that the ship might break up and asked the Spanish authorities for permission to move his ship to a sheltered area near the coast, so the tanker could be lightered. The Spanish government refused and forced the master to return to his stricken ship to take it out into a raging storm. The ship sank and spilled 70,000 metric tons of oil on Spanish coast.

(h) Role Of Classification Societies

In today’s time when there already innumerable rules are there they have not been able to ensure the safety of ships and their compliance according to the set standards. The maritime industry

needs more than a set of large number of rules. This is where the classification societies play a major role, though having independent bodies they work in coordination with shipyards, ship owners, flag state authorities, port state control and other national and international bodies.

The Classification societies set technical rules, confirm that designs and calculations meet these rules, survey ships and structures during the process of construction and commissioning, and periodically survey vessels to ensure that they continue to meet the rules. Classification societies are also responsible for classing oil platforms, other offshore structures, and submarines. This survey process covers diesel engines, important shipboard pumps and other vital machinery.

Classification surveyors inspect ships to make sure that the ship, its components and machinery are built and maintained according to the standards required for their class. The classifications of ships also helps in tackling with substandard ships, such ships are more prone to accidents at sea and therefore more likely to cause marine pollution. On finding that if a ship doesn’t meet the required standards of a class set by the classification society then it class is cancelled.

Other than providing classification and certification services, the larger societies also conduct research at their own research facilities in order to improve the effectiveness of their rules and to investigate the safety of innovations in shipbuilding. . The classification rules cover the structural integrity and mechanical ability of the vessel including hull structures, machinery and electrical installations, test procedures for materials and welding and analysis techniques such as for strength and stability. This has helped at lot in ensuring the safety of vessels at sea and restricting pollution caused by them.

The combining of knowledge of risk management research into environmental risks and sustainability has helped the various classification societies to work with their partners to ensure that at all stages of a ships life – building, operation, dismantling, and recycling – they can help owners and operators to save fuel, save money, and be recognized as world oceans friendly users.

4. Reasons for high emission from ships & measures to contain it

Though ships are the cheapest and less polluting mode of transportation compared to any other mode of transportation, nonetheless, the scope of making it more environment friendly is huge. With the kind of modern technology available the cut emission level can be brought to even more lower levels.

4.1 Reasons for high emission from ships

It is necessary that ship use clean fuel; presently they use the cheapest, filthiest, high sulphur fuel: the thick residue left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken.

Bunker oil is thick with Sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to ships to burn fuel containing about 4.5% of Sulphur. That is, 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in the European Union. The Sulphur comes out of the ship funnels as tiny particles, and these that get deep into lungs. The largest ship can emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year - the same as 500 million cars, each emitting an average of 100 gm of Sulphur a year. According to new IMO regulation, the Sulphur content should come down to 3.5 % in shipping fuels by 2012 and eventually to 0.5 % in future.

With an estimated 800 million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super ships can emit as much Sulphur as world fleet of cars.

4.2 Cutting emission through technical and operational measures

The IMO GHG study 2009 estimates a significant potential for reducing GHG emissions available through technical and operational measures which in combination could increase efficiency and reduce the emissions rate by 25 per cent to 75 per cent compared to the current levels. Many of the measures are likely to be cost-effective, with obstacles to implementation likely to be unrelated to financial considerations. For example, in the case of renewable energy,limitations posed by the availability and variable intensity of wind and solar energy could prove challenging for the implementation. Technical measures affecting ship design (mainly new buildings) and operational measures (all ships) each have the potential to reduce CO2 emissionsby 10 to 50 per cent.Technology and operational fuel saving and GHG emission reduction strategies can be grouped into strategies affecting vessel design, engine design, propulsion systems, other technology-related strategies, and operational measures

STRATEGY POTENTIAL EFFICENCY GAINS

Efficiency of scale <4 percentDesign for reduced ballast operation <7 percentLightweight construction <7 percent Optimum hull dimensions <9 percentBulbous bow <20 percentDiesel electric drives 5-30 percent Waste heat recovery <10 percentCounter-rotating propellers <12 percent Propeller efficiency monitoring <5 percentEfficient propeller speed modulation <5 percentWind power: kites and sails <20 percentSolar power <4 per centAutomation <10 percentFuel additives <2 percentPort turnaround time <10 percentPropeller surface maintenance <10 percentHull coating <5 percentShip speed reduction <23 percentVoyage planning and weather routing <10 percentOverall energy awareness <10 percent

TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES

1. Air Cavity System

Danish marine industry innovators prepare to revolutionize global shipping with a potential of saving up to 15% of the fuel, the patented Air Cavity System by DK Group is breaking news for ship owners. By reducing the frictional resistance of the hull surface, the Air Cavity System is able to save fuel and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the shipping industry, which accounts for 4 percent of the global CO2 emissions.

The technology is developed by Danish marine technology pioneer Jorn Winkler and Russian physicist Konstantin Matveev and patented worldwide.

DK Group Air Cavity System (ACS) technology injects air into specially designed hulls, which reduces the frictional resistance of the hull surface against the water. A layer of air is generated between the hull and the water, allowing the vessel to effectively ‘glide’ through the water, reducing hydrodynamic resistance while it only takes about 0,5-1% of the propulsion power to keep the air compression going.

2. SCR flue gas emission control system

Selective Catalytic Reduction, SCR, is a system for after-treatment of exhaust gases. It can reduce emissions of NOx by more than 90%, and operates better with low-sulphur fuel oil. There are now around 100 ships fitted with SCR – many of them are frequent callers at Swedish ports.

Ex. Of ships on SCR system is used

(a)By fitting SCR to all its engines, the emissions of nitrogen oxides from Viking Line’s MS Cinderella are cut by 97%, down to 0.4 g/kWh. MS Cinderella also uses low-sulphur (< 0.5%) fuel, and is in Stockholm connected to shore-side power.

(b)The freighter MS Cellus emits 90 percent less NOx and 80 per cent less sulphur dioxide than an equivalent standard ship. It is equipped with an SCR flue gas emission control system and uses low-sulphur fuel oil.

3. Technology to reduce emission of Nitrogen oxides

Internal Engine Modifications (IEM), Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR), and water injection are different techniques for preventing the formation of NOx during combustion. The potential for emission reduction is around 30–50%, the highest for water injection.

4. Kite Sails

Skysails: a wind propulsion system based on large towing kites, fuel costs for ships can be reduced by 10- 35%on annual average.

5. Ballast Water Treatment by PureBallast

PureBallast is the first system in the world to gain IMO approval. The system is chemical-free and compact and easy to use. PureBallast received the WWF Baltic Leadership Award for environmental excellence.

6. CO2- Reducing Fuel Oil Additive

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL) recently announced development of a fuel additive for merchant ships that reduces carbon dioxide and boosts efficiency. This development was undertaken in conjunction with Taihokohzai Co., Ltd., Japan’s largest fuel additive manufacturer. MOL will use the new additive, called TAICRUSH HD, on its operated vessels in order to reduce the environmental impact of its operations.

TAICRUSH HD improves the ignition performance and sludge (carbon and sediment) dispersion in heavy fuel oils. It reduces ignition delay and afterburning time by more than 30%.

Compared to conventional fuel oil additives for large-scale vessels, the new additive promotes improved combustion and reduced fuel consumption.

MOL and Taihokohzai collected and analyzed data, conducted engine tests on shore and at sea, and verified fuel efficiency improvements ranging from 1.12% to 1.46%, though not a big.

7. Energy-Saving Hull Appendage: MT-FAST

The hull appendage MT-FAST is an energy-saving device that greatly reduces fuel consumption. Its multiple blades are fitted ahead of the ship's propeller to reduce the swirl generated by propeller revolutions and thereby enhance propulsion efficiency

Features - MT-FAST fits multiple blades ahead of the ship's propeller and thereby reduces both the swirl generated by propeller revolutions and the energy lost in that swirl. Tests have demonstrated that it reduces fuel consumption by about 4%. It can be fitted to both ships under construction and existing ships

8. Combustion Equipment for Water-Emulsion Fuel

This equipment, now under development, burns a composite fuel of water and heavy oil (water-emulsion fuel) in marine auxiliary boilers. The combustibility of water-emulsion fuel is higher than the combustibility of heavy oil alone and therefore helps to reduce fuel consumption in marine auxiliary boilers. The equipment is additionally environment- friendly because water-emulsion fuel emits cleaner exhaust gas (less CO2 and NOx emissions).

Water-emulsion fuel is a fuel compound, a mixture of water emulsified in heavy oil. When water-emulsion fuel burns, the water droplets in the fuel suddenly rise in temperature, expanding and atomizing the surrounding oil into diffuse minute particles. As a result, the combustible surface area of oil particles and air increases considerably, which leads to more efficient fuel combustion.Although water-emulsion fuel formerly required a special emulsifier, the equipment now under development does not require such an emulsifier and thus allows for lower costs.

In addition, the equipment is compact and works with existing burners, so it can be installed on ships currently in operation.

FeaturesThe equipment creates high combustibility in marine auxiliary boilers, which leads to lower fuel costs. The equipment is environment-friendly because water-emulsion fuel burns almost completely, thus reducing CO2 and NOx. The equipment does not require a special emulsifier and therefore saves costs. The equipment is compact and works with existing burners. The equipment is designed for the combustion of class-C heavy oil in marine auxiliary boilers.

OPERATIONAL MEASURES

1. Use of clean Bunker

Low-sulphur fuel. Sea-going ships burn extremely dirty fuels that contain on average 2.5–3% sulphur – almost 3,000 times the sulphur content of road diesel fuel in Europe. Emissions are directly proportional to the sulphur content of the fuel, and the simplest way of reducing them is to use fuel oil with low sulphur content.

Because of its higher quality, low-sulphur distillate fuel has the advantage of making for smoother engine running, with less risk of operating problems and less maintenance costs. It also significantly reduces emissions of PM and several other harmful substances.

2. Alternative energy sources

The use of fossil fuel must come down. Experiments with wind power (SkySails) and fuel cells are ongoing. Small craft operate on solar power and scaling this technology up is a challenge for the shipping industry.

Limitations of alternative energy sources - Recently a lot of optimism has been shown regarding the alternative sources however the shipping industry is not yet in a position to adopt energy substitutes . Although renewable energy in the form of wind and solar power can be used on board ship as additional power, the total share of energy that can be covered in this way is limited by the availability and variable intensity of wind and solar energy, as well as by the current technology. While LNG gas may be used as an alternative fuel in shipping, there remains the challenge of finding sufficient space for the onboard storage of the fuel, and also concerns over increases in the emission of methane – another greenhouse gas. LNG technology is available only for a certain number of ships with a certain number of engines. The potential for using biofuel is limited by technology-related issues, and also by cost.

3. Shore-side electricity

While docked at the port, ships shut off their propulsion engines, but use their auxiliary engines to power refrigeration, lights, pumps and other equipment. If ships connect to a shore-side power supply instead, emissionsn of SO2, NOx, and PM can be cut by 90% or more. The initiative could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent, nitrogen oxides and particulates by more than 95 percent, and it could eliminate noise pollution entirely

Limitations- But the benefits of offering electricity at port – a practice known in shipping as cold ironing – has so far been limited because only a fraction of ships are built to be compatible with on-shore electricity or have been adapted to use such power sources

4. Gas engines

Ship engines can also operate on natural gas (LNG) and in this way reduce SO2 emissions to almost zero since there is no sulphur in LNG. Emissions of NOx and PM are also significantly reduced, by 80% or more.

5. Modernize existing fleets - replace fleet with ships equipped with best technology.

6. Modern Equipment – The use of modern equipments can make shipping much safe and equipment, the deployment of sophisticated equipments have already brought down the number of maritime accident thereby decreasing the marine pollution.

7. Reception Facilities - IMO has recognized that provision of reception facilities is crucial for effective MARPOL implementation, and the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has strongly encouraged Member States, particularly those Parties to the MARPOL Convention as port States, to fulfil their treaty obligations on providing adequate reception facilities.

The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at its 55th session in October 2006 approved an Action Plan to tackle the alleged inadequacy of port reception facilities - seen as a major hurdle to overcome in order to achieve full compliance with MARPOL.

8. Short routes - The Northern Sea Route trims 4,000 nautical miles (7,400 km) off the usual 11,000-mile journey via the Suez Canal, which yields big cuts in fuel costs, time and CO2 emissions.

9. Slow steaming – can reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. However, slow steaming also implies that engines are not operated at their rated capacities, which could cause lower engine temperatures and pressures, a drop in efficiency and a possible increase in particulate matter emissions.

5. Alternatives of shipping transportation

In near future there does not seems to be any alternative to transportation through ships. The other modes of transportation are like rail, road & air are too costly, and results in emission of more GHG (Green House Gases) compared to shipping. The global export and import of goods had ever become possible because of shipping.

The industry serves more than 90 per cent of global trade and as commerce has grown, so has the shipping fleet. At present it is more efficient to ship a container from Beijing to London than it is to transport it 100km by road.

In general, shipping produces less greenhouse gases per tonne kilometer than any other form of transportation, and technological advances and the use of larger ships are constantly improving that efficiency. Comparison of CO2 emissions by different transport modes

6. Benefit to cost analysis of reduced emissions

All benefits of reduced emissions cannot be quantified in monetary terms. Though some benefits like installations of some new equipments can be quantified in monetary terms e.g. technologically advanced engines, where the savings on fuel consumption can be calculated. But there are some benefits which are difficult to quantify in monetary terms like impact of reduced on humans beings, aquatic & marine life, and preserving the natural beauty of the nature.

However, using figures from the US Environmental Protection Agency for the value of a statistical life, the annual cost to society of the 60,000 or so annual deaths caused by shipping in 2002 is over 200 billion euro per year.

Clearly, the cost to society of taking no action to reduce air pollutant emissions from ships is much higher than the cost of implementing control measures (e.g. a global 0.5% sulphur distillate fuel requirement) and the benefits of reduced emissions greatly exceed the costs.

Of course, there are other likely health impacts from shipping emissions that are not accounted for by looking only at premature mortality, such as non-fatal heart attacks, lung disease, asthma, hospital visits, and lost workdays, as well as a wide variety of environmental impacts.

A lowering of the sulphur content of marine heavy fuel oil from the current average of about 2.7 per cent down to 0.5 per cent in all European sea areas, would reduce total sulphur dioxide emissions from international shipping around Europe by more than three quarters by 2010, as compared to the emission levels of 2000.

Estimates of the cost of lowering the sulphur content of marine heavy fuel oil vary significantly. As there appears to be no obvious explanation for the big differences in cost estimates, three different figures have been applied for this analysis. The lowest cost figure (580 euro/tonne reduction in sulphur dioxide) is taken from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). The medium figure (1,083 euro/tonne SO2) and the high cost figure (1,938 euro/ tonne SO2) are both taken from Beicip-Franlab.

Figures on the estimated economic benefits of reducing SO2 emissions were taken from a study prepared for the European Commission by AEA Technology. These benefit figures vary between sea areas, from 1,600 to 5,900 euro/tonne SO2 depending primarily on the differences in population exposure resulting from the emissions. The benefit estimates include the impact on health due to fine particles and SO2 and the effects of SO2 and acidity on modern buildings and structures. Damage to ecosystems and cultural heritage, and impact on visibility are however not accounted for, which means that the benefits are underestimated.

A comparison of the benefits and the costs for all European sea areas combined, show that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. For the year 2020, the annual benefits are estimated to amount to nearly 12 billion euro, while the costs are estimated to amount to between 1.6 and 5.4 billion euro per year. The resulting net benefits would be between 6.6 and 10.4 billion euro per year.

The benefit-to-cost ratio varies significantly depending on the cost figure used. If assuming the highest cost estimate, the benefits are calculated to exceed the costs by about 2.2 times, and if

assuming the lowest cost estimate, the benefits are calculated to be 7.5 times higher than the costs.

Regarding the various sea areas, the Mediterranean shows the highest benefit- to-cost ratios, with benefits exceeding costs by up to 8.1 times, as well as the highest benefits in absolute terms. This is then followed by the NE Atlantic and the North Sea, showing benefit-to-cost ratios of up to 7.8 and 7.4 times, respectively. The Baltic Sea shows the lowest benefit-to-cost ratios, with at most 2.8 times, and it is the only sea area which – when assuming the highest cost figure – comes out with a negative benefit-to-cost ratio (0.8).

Potential costs and benefits of policy options for reducing offshore ship pollution are examined using a meta-analysis of studies synthesized regionally for the US West Coast. Net benefits of reducing SO2 emissions from cargo ships in the US West Coast waters are found to range between $98 million and $284 million, annually; the benefit–cost ratio varies between 1.8 and 3.36, depending on the size of the control area and the sulfur content limit.

It has been well known that poor fuel quality and increased maintenance costs and the imperfect combustion in any type of internal -combustion engine is always accompanied by greater wear and tear of vital parts. But switching to cleaner fuel has also not been reported smooth. Though there are certain benefits of switching to cleaner fuel with reduced Sulphur content, nevertheless, this has also created some problems for the shipowners and engine manufacturers. The engines are designed to work at optimum efficiency depending upon the type of fuel but there has been reports of problems in ship engines when run on cleaner fuel less in Sulphur content.

The changes to MARPOL Annex VI that will see a progressive reduction in Sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions from ships, with the global sulphur cap reduced initially to 3.50% (from the current 4.50%), effective from 1 January 2012; then progressively to 0.50 %, effective from 1 January 2020 will also affect the prices of fuel and that too only in one direction, upward. This rise in fuel prices will affect the competitiveness of maritime transport and result in higher prices of goods.

6.1 Impact on human health as a result of emissions from the shipping industry

Research from America says pollution from the world's cargo ships leads to 60 000 premature deaths per year in America, while European research suggests the figure could be 39 000 in the EU. Another study by the Danish environmental agency says shipping emissions cost the Danish health service over €4.5 billion per year, mainly treating cancers and heart problems.

Some reports suggest a container ship using low-grade ship bunker fuels can cause the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50 million cars. The same calculations would mean 15 of the world's biggest tankers would emit the same amount of pollutants as all cars on the planet.The USA announced last month that it was setting up a 230-mile (370km) 'buffer zone' along the entire American coast, which it believes will save up to 8000 lives a year.

The EU, which has so far failed to tackle shipping emissions with the same priority as land-based transport, is planning two low-emissions marine zones, likely to start after 2015 in the Baltic and North Seas

6.2 How expensive and problematic such a step will be?

How expensive and problematic it will be to switch to fuel with lesser Sulphur content from fuel with higher Sulphur can be understood by taking into consideration the EU Directive 2005/33EC, which requires the use of maximum 0.1% sulphur content fuel on ships at berth at EU ports, started on the 1st of January 2010.

The above Directive with great concern since there are still a number of implementation and interpretation issues, which need to be clarified.

The steps that need to be taken by owners and/or operators in order to comply with the EU Directive 2005/33EC are the following:

a) Determine whether they intend to operate their ships within the areas affected by the above mentioned Directive.

b) Contact boilers’ and diesel engines’ manufacturers and associated system providers who in turn will assess suitability of the respective boiler or diesel engine to operate with low sulphur fuel oil.

It will be the sole responsibility of the owners/operators to ensure, based on the assessment of the manufacturers, that their vessels are suitable for operation on low sulphur fuel oils.

c) Follow manufacturers’ instructions with respect to possible boilers/diesel engine design modifications. Such design modifications might affect the following installations and equipment:

Fuel capacity and tanks’ arrangement for the different grades of fuel oil.

Fuel oil supply: pipes, pumps, cooler/heater, fuel oil booster system.

Main and auxiliary boilers: Burners and Burner control systems might have to be adjusted/ replaced.

d) Submit drawings and documents which will include all above mentioned modifications, including materials and safety arrangements, to the respective classification society for approval.

A Hazard Identification study (HAZID) to be prepared with the assistance of the designers and be submitted for approval as well.

e) Instruct the manufacturer to carry out all necessary alterations/modifications in accordance with the approved drawings and invite Class surveyor for verification.

f) Carry out an operational test, in presence of a Class surveyor, who will also verify that the modification has been carried out according to the Class approved drawings and the crew has

familiarize itself with the change-over procedures from heavy fuel oil (HFO) to low sulphur marine gas oil (LSMGO).

g) Issuance of a “Factual Statement” by the classification society as evidence of compliance with the said Directive.

It has to be underlined that the 0.1% sulphur content marine gas oil characteristics and fuel quality aspects are a matter of concern. Viscosity, lubricity, flash point and contamination (including the use of bio-fuels) are elements on which limited information/experience is available at the present time.

Main points of concern are:

Fuel switching related problems, Flame failure leading to the formation of an explosive atmosphere in the boilers and, Lack of experience of the crew in switching from HFO to LSMGO.

 Inevitably, the question of expenses automatically arises and this was one of the topics discussed during EMSA’s technical meeting in Lisbon on 15 October 2009. An estimate of the cost of the modifications is as follows:

Small boilers: installed onboard all types of ships, the costs for modification, if needed, is up to 25,000 Euros.

Large boilers: this particular type of boiler, commonly installed on tankers to produce steam for cargo operations, the cost for modification is in the range of 150,000 Euros.

Main Propulsion Boilers: These boilers are used for main propulsion, shipboard electricity generation and cargo operations. This type of boilers is commonly fitted onboard LNG carriers. In this respect it has been estimated that approximately 260 ships need to be modified. The costs are difficult to estimate and figures ranging from 70,000 to 1,400,000 Euros per ship have been sited with a median of around 600,000 Euros.

It has to be noted that these costs do not include costs for taking the ship out of service if modification are done outside a regular dry-docking.

Auxiliary Diesel Engines: If modifications are need to the tank and fuel supply system including the replacement of heavy fuel oil pumps and the installation of a cooler, the cost will range between 25,000 and 50,000 Euros.

7. Impact of climate change on maritime industry

So far we studied discussed about the impact of shipping activities on climate change but now turning the situation on its head we would see the impact on climate change on maritime industry business.

International maritime transport is playing a part in contributing to climate change, but more importantly, it is also likely to be directly and indirectly impacted itself, by the various climate change factors such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events and rising temperatures.The wide-ranging impacts of climate change, including on maritime transport, and their potential implications for trade, economic growth and development, underscore the need to integrate climate considerations into strategies for transport planning and development.

The impact of climate change on shipping industry can be best seen in case of Arctic region. A few years back the region was completely inaccessible for shipping activities but the dramatic decrease in sea ice above the Arctic Circle means formerly impenetrable shipping routes are now or soon could be open for much of the year.

This also creates unprecedented access for ships that will bring people to the north, and will significantly shorten global marine transportation routes. This will lead to dramatic cost difference in transportation of goods. The U.S. Arctic Research Commission has estimated that the cost of transporting a shipping container between northern Europe and Alaska's Aleutian Islands is about $500 while moving the same container between Europe and the port of Yokohama, through the Suez Canal, costs about $1,500.

The melting of ice in Arctic has opened up two shipping shortcuts of the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. These would cut existing oceanic transit times by days, saving shipping companies from thousands of miles in travel. The Northern Sea Route would reduce the sailing distance between Rotterdam and Yokohama from 11,200 nautical miles—via the current route, through the Suez Canal—to only 6,500 nautical miles, a savings of more than 40 percent.

Northern Sea Route: 6,500 nautical miles (Dotted Line)

Current route: 11,200 nautical miles (Dark Line)

Likewise, the Northwest Passage would trim a voyage from Seattle to Rotterdam by 2,000 nautical miles, making it nearly 25 percent shorter than the current route, via the Panama Canal.

Northwest Passage: 7,000 nautical miles (Dotted Line)

Current route: 9,000 nautical miles (Dark Line)

In an age of just-in-time delivery, and with increasing fuel costs eating into the profits of shipping companies, reducing long-haul sailing distances by as much as 40 percent could usher in a new phase of globalization. Arctic routes would force further competition between the Panama and Suez Canals, thereby reducing current canal tolls; shipping chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca would no longer dictate global shipping patterns; and Arctic seaways would allow for greater international economic integration. When the ice recedes enough, likely within this decade, a marine highway directly over the North Pole will materialize. Such a route, which would most likely run between Iceland and Alaska’s Dutch Harbor, would connect shipping mega-ports in the North Atlantic with those in the North Pacific.

The less sea ice means easier access for offshore oil exploration and drilling in the Arctic, which is thought to contain about 25 percent of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves. Adverse Impact Of Shipping Activities On The Arctic Region

The increased shipping activity in the Arctic region may have following impacts:

(a) Increased shipping activities may result in shipping accidents like oil spillage, besides damage to environment this might have economical consequences for about half of the fish consumed in the United States comes from the Bering Sea off the Alaskan coast.

(b) Loss of habitat for polar bears and seals - which use sea ice for hunting and resting – face major threat.

(c) Diminishing sea ice means coastlines will no longer be insulated by ice from wave damage and will suffer erosion, as is already happening in Alaska.

(d) The shipping activities might speed up the disappearance of reflective ice over the Arctic means that solar radiation would no longer be bounced back into space, thus heating the planet even further.

(e) Some scientists believe that too much fresh melt water could actually 'switch off ' some of these sea currents, which play a crucial role in the climate further south.

8. CONCLUSION

There are many environmental issues associated with Shipping and Port operations. Some of these issues have socio-economic impacts on the communities in maritime areas. However, shipping is seen as an environmentally acceptable method of transport and at present there seems to be no other alternative to maritime transport, so it should be ensured that shipping industry carry its operations without causing any serious threat to the environment.

The shipping industry can only carry on its operations safely in environment friendly manner when it strictly follows the rules and continuously invests in finding ways of containing emissions from the ships. Because once the pollution like oil spillage take place the cost of cleaning up the environment runs into billions of dollars, so the best to prevent to marine pollution is not allow it happen in first place.

International, national, and local legislation and guidelines help control and regulate the impact of shipping and port operations on the marine environment.

Increased training is needed in the environmental and legal issues and is recognized within STCW and the ISM code. Education and training in environmental issues will lead to a better-educated workforce with a deeper understanding of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of shipping. This better awareness should help in the further development of legally compliant and ultimately a sustainable industry.

The challenge remains to reduce environmental damage by maritime operations to a level that is acceptable and sustainable.

9. ABBREVIATIONS

ACS - Air Cavity System

AIS - Automatic Identification System

BWM Convention - Ballast Water Management, Convention

CFC – Chlorofluorocarbon

CLC, 1969 - International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage

EEZs - Exclusive Economic Zones

EGR - Exhaust Gas Recirculation

GESAMP - Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection

GHGs - Greenhouse Gases

HFO - heavy fuel oil

HAZID - Hazard Identification study

IEM - Internal Engine Modifications

IHM - Inventory of Hazardous Materials

IIASA - International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

IMDG - International Maritime Dangerous Goods

IMO - International maritime Organization

ISM - International Safety Management Code

LSMGO- low sulphur marine gas oil

MARPOL – Marine Pollution

MEPC - Marine Environment Protection Committee

OPA 90 - Oil Pollution Act of 1990

PCBs - Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PBCF - Propeller Boss Cap Fins

PCS - Port State Control

PCTC- Pure Car Truck Carrier

PM- Particulate Matter

SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction

SMS - Safety Management System

SNAJ - Society of Naval Architects of Japan

SOx - Sulphur oxide

SOLAS – Safety of Life At Sea

STCW Convention - International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification & Watchkeeping

TBT – Tributyltin

TEU- Twenty Feet Equivalent Unit

WRC - International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks

10. BIBLOGRAPHY

1. Imo website,2. hellenic shipping news3. commercial management in shipping, Don L. Dykstra4.The newyork times, February 2, 20105. Shipping and ports in the twenty-first century: globalisation, technological ... By David Pinder, Brian Slack6. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/index_en.html)7. imdgdangerousgoodsfocus.pdf8. International chamber of shipping9. maritime-Transport- policy-en.pdf Published by: European Commission,Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, B-1049 Brussels.10. www.plwmarine.co.11. www.mjengineering.com.12. pbcf.motech.co.13. www.mol.co14. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN182347742007031815. http://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/articles/arctic16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_society17. http://www.iflos.org/media/9340/lecture%20gesa%20heinacher-lindemann.pdf

18. http://airclim.org/reports/cba_briefing_jan05.pdf

19. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shipping-pollution-far-more-damaging-than-flying-396455.html

20. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1361920907000909

21. http://www.nafsgreen.gr/magazine/index.php/articles/technical/608-gl

22. http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2008/shipping_news

23. bpa.odu.edu/port/research/ENVIRONMENTAIMPACTS.doc

24. Shipping is the most energy efficient mode of transport.pdf