Terminal Evaluation: Transforming the Global Maritime Transport Industry towards a Low Carbon Future through Improved Energy Efficiency (PIMS 5201)

Report Cover Image

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document 5201 GloMEEP Final TE Report 181222.pdf report English 1615.68 KB Posted 629
Download document PIMS 5201 TE TOR.docx tor English 188.50 KB Posted 362
Title Terminal Evaluation: Transforming the Global Maritime Transport Industry towards a Low Carbon Future through Improved Energy Efficiency (PIMS 5201)
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2021, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2018
Planned End Date: 12/2018
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.5.1 Solutions developed, financed and applied at scale for energy efficiency and transformation to clean energy and zero-carbon development, for poverty eradication and structural transformation
Evaluation Budget(US $): 10,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 10,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with UN Agencies
  • Joint with IMO
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
David Vousden
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Transforming the Global maritime Transport Industry towards a Low carbon Future through Improved Energy Efficiency
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: International Waters
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5508
PIMS Number: 5201
Key Stakeholders: Lead partner countries (government), private sector
Countries: GLOBAL
Lessons
Findings
1.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

Although air pollution from ships does not have the direct cause and effect associated with, for example, an oil spill incident, it causes a cumulative effect that contributes to the overall air quality problems encountered by populations in many areas, affects the natural environment, and has a significant influence on climate change and associated issues such ocean acidification.

In 1997, a new Annex was added to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (Annex VI) seek to minimize airborne emissions from ships and their contribution to local and global air pollution and environmental problems. Annex VI entered into force on 19 May 2005 and a revised Annex VI with significantly tightened emissions limits was adopted in October 2008 which entered into force on 1 July 2010 In 2011, IMO adopted mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures which are expected to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from international shipping. These mandatory measures (EEDI – Energy Efficiency Design Index and SEEMP - Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan) entered into force on 1 January 2013. IMO has adopted important guidelines aimed at supporting implementation of the mandatory measures to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions from international shipping, paving the way for the regulations on EEDI and SEEMP to be smoothly implemented by Administrations and industry. The expected growth of world trade represents a challenge to meeting a future target for emissions required to achieve stabilization in global temperatures and so IMO has begun consideration of further technical and operational measures to enhance the energy efficiency of ships. It is within this context and background that IMO and UNDP approached GEF to provide funding for a Global Maritime Energy Efficiency Project. 

2.1 Project Start and Duration

GloMEEP has been a medium-sized project that has been executed over a two year plus period. Its starting date was approximately June 2015 and it was originally scheduled to finish in May 2017. The Project was formally launched at the Future-Ready Shipping Conference in Singapore in 2015 co-hosted with the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. The project was extended to December 2018 at no additional cost to GEF in order to take advantage of additional co-funding that had been leveraged as well as to address the fact that the outputs and activities from this Project were very ambitious for a medium-sized project to say the least and needed more time for completion.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Emission Reduction Energy Relevance Global Environment Facility fund Policies & Procedures Results-Based Management Theory of Change Technical Support

2.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT (continuation)

2.3 Immediate and Development Objectives of the Project

GloMEEP project has been developed as a global partnership that spurs government action and industry innovation and know-how in order to reduce the GHG emissions from international shipping and mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change and ocean acidification. While the reach is global, all of the intended outcomes, outputs and activities are directly focused at national levels towards improving maritime institutions, technologies and operations as well as improved monitoring and impact mitigation in the participating developing countries. 

To implement this process, a three-tier approach was be followed that included:

1. A global component, managed through IMO, providing international coordination and information dissemination, including the development of toolkits and guidance documents, and establishing a strong cooperation with international maritime industry and NGOs. 2. A small regional component, providing regional activities that again will be managed through IMO. The regional activities are mainly in areas of information sharing, training, and capacity building in the application of ship energy management tools and guidelines plus energy efficiency technologies. 3. A significant country (national) component that establishes a fast track implementation for a number of GEF-eligible LPCs in the priority regions.

The overall objective of GloMEEP project is to build capacity in developing countries for implementing the technical and operational measures for energy efficient shipping and to catalyze overall reductions in GHG emissions from global shipping. The specific objectives of the project include the creation of a strong partnership and coordinated actions between 10 developing countries and, at each country level, systematically pursue: 

• Legal, policy and institutional improvements via country assessment, policy development and future planning and road mapping. • Building capacity (human and institutional) in area of shipping GHG reduction • Create the foundation for public-private partnership for future energy efficient technology assessment and deployment. • Accelerate and assure effective implementation of IMO MEEF, particularly in the developing countries where shipping is increasingly concentrated

The ultimate objective of GloMEEP is to assist developing states to implement sustainable methods and create an enabling national environment for reduction of shipping energy use and promotion of low carbonmaritime sector in order to minimize the adverse impacts of shipping emissions on climate change, ocean acidification and local air quality.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Emission Reduction Energy Effectiveness Relevance Communication Knowledge management Monitoring and Evaluation Partnership Policies & Procedures Capacity Building Operational Services

3.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT (continuation)

2.4 Baseline indicators Established Under the baseline and with no GEF intervention scenario, it is anticipated that without further technical cooperation, capacity building and mobilization of private sector interests, IMO MEEF implementation in the developing countries, where most international ships are flagged and traveling to and from, will only be partially achieved and that is clearly not desirable if the shipping sector is to contribute to global efforts to minimize the impacts of climate change. Such a baseline scenario would also result in losing much of the momentum generated by the adoption of the IMO MEEF, in particular on effective implementation of the SEEMP element of regulations. Also, under this scenario, without further support for developing nations and development of global tools and information exchange platforms, there is little hope for substantial technology and skills transfer from developed countries to the developing world. Within this context, the GEF support is sought to build on, catalyse shipping energy efficiency, optimize benefits from and maintain the momentum generated by the adoption of a global regulatory framework. The above forms the main rationale for seeking GEF funding on this important issue. The Project Results Framework has established the baseline for each of the project’s intended Outcomes along with the indictors that demonstrate that the baseline scenario has been addressed.

2.5 Main Stakeholders Without precluding the participation of additional partners, the following institutions and organizations were listed in the Project Document as being likely to be involved and interact during the GloMEEP implementation based on findings from the stakeholders’ consultations: • Maritime administrations and coastguard agencies • Ministries of transport, environment and climate change • National environmental agencies and national GEF Country Focal Points • Parliamentary committees for environmental protection • Shipping companies and associations • Shipbuilding companies and associations • Port authorities • Marine fuel suppliers/bunkering • National maritime R&D and training institutions • International technology developers and marine equipment suppliers • International organizations involved in energy management and climate change • Relevant NGOs and local government agencies • Donor governments, communities and international financial institutions

A full consultation with the partner countries was conducted for GloMEEP project development and as part of the Project Preparation Grant phase, (see Section 1.3.3). As part of these LPCs’ consultations, representatives from the above institutions and agencies from 10 LPCs took part in the relevant meetings and they were therefore fully aware of the GloMEEP objectives and had pre-agreed, in general terms, to GloMEEP’s aims and plans. The stakeholder’s and their engagement are discussed in more detail below under Section 4.3 Stakeholder Engagement.


Tag: Emission Reduction Energy Partnership Results-Based Management Private Sector Capacity Building Technical Support

4.

3. PROJECT DESIGN AND FORMULATION

3.1 Overall Feedback on Original Project Design

The main concern regarding the Project design actual relates to the fact that it was a massively ambitious set of objectives, activities and associated deliverables. This was far too ambitious to have been accepted as a Medium-Sized Project and it should have been a Full-Sized Project with associated equivalent funding and duration. The criticism here does not relate to the ‘ambitious’ nature of the project design and expected delivery itself. The Project Document is well-written, if a little lengthy and repetitive in places, but it does capture accurately the needs of such an intervention to support this very complex subject. In short, the outputs and deliverables are appropriate and sequentially logical, and the Project would not have been able to deliver effectively on its overall objective if any of these had been removed. The Evaluation has to level the criticism at the decision by GEF to only allocate sufficient funding for such an enormous task at the Medium-Size intervention level, thus limiting this funding to $2 million maximum. The activities and deliverables are detailed, complex and time-consuming and the demands placed on IMO and the Project Management Unit have been considerable and essentially very risky in terms of GEF’s investment as well as in the context of delivering what was needed to support Annex VI compliance and ratification let alone adding further support for energy efficiency at the Port level. Otherwise, All of the LPCs felt that the Project Design was good with the exception of the timing (duration) and shortage of funding. The activities and deliverables were considered to be appropriate and none of the LPCs felt that these should have been significantly changed.

3.2 Amendments to Proposed Evaluation Approach There were no amendments to the original evaluation approach as defined in the Inception Report and as outlined above under 1.2 Scope and Methodology. Originally, it was planned that the Draft Evaluation Report would be presented in person by the Evaluator at the GPTF in China in November but due to time constraints and obvious economies it was decided that this could be a ‘virtual’ presentation.

3.3 Logic and Design of Results Framework The following Table is a summary assessment of the original Results Framework to assess whether it was designed effectively around the expected SMART Targets for Indicators. The full review of Indicators and Targets is included as Annex 7.1. Actual delivery on these indicators is analysed in Section 5. Project Results. The table reviews the targets for various activities under each Component (outcome) as a percentage of their effectiveness as SMART indicators of deliver. 

TABLE 1: ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT INDICATOR TARGETS FOR ‘SMART’ COMPLIANCE

A number of the indicator targets used in the Project Document are not specific enough and/or do not have effectively measurable end-of-project delivery. The whole purpose of the SMART process (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Bound) is to ensure that targets are actually effective for monitoring purposes and for evaluation and project delivery assessment. Also, in this case, the same targets are used for the Overall Objective of the Project as for the Component. The Objective should have broader scale targets than the Components relating to ‘number of LPCs that have…’ and, where possible/feasible, some measure of potential overall reduction in GHG emissions at country levels.


Tag: Emission Reduction Energy Knowledge management Oversight Partnership Results-Based Management Risk Management Theory of Change

5.

3. PROJECT DESIGN AND FORMULATION (continuation)

3.5 Lessons from other Relevant Projects The GloMEEP project has built a lot of its structure, processes and activities on the successful GEF UNDP IMO GloBallast project which was finalised in 2017. The GloBallast project adopted a three-tier structure for delivery which proved to be a very effective management mechanism and was thus also built into GloMEEP. GloMEEP has also anchored itself within the International Maritime Organisation, with UNDP selecting that agency as its executing Agency for the purposes of procurement, contracting, legal advice and awareness raising. This proved to be very effective earlier during the GloBALLAST project as IMO has direct linkages into the Shipping and Ports industries and the national government agencies and private bodies that deal with maritime affairs. The MEPC meetings provide an excellent opportunity to showcase GEF projects such as GloBallast and this was certainly also seen to be the case with GloMEEP, with country representation on the MEPC formally recognising the role and effectiveness of the GloMEEP activities.


Tag: Effectiveness Efficiency Implementation Modality Knowledge management Monitoring and Evaluation Oversight Partnership Programme Synergy Project and Programme management Country Government

6.

3. PROJECT DESIGN AND FORMULATION (continuation)

3.7 Replication Approach

The project was designed to develop specific guidelines and toolkits and then to replicate the delivery of these through national level workshops. The Project also captured lessons from each of these workshops and training activities and replicated these also across other LPCs. The GloMEEP intention has always been to develop processes that could be subsequently used by not only national stakeholders within the LPCs but also by wider developing countries that are not members of GloMEEP. The work done on the toolkits and the results of other activities have been shared beyond the LPCs particularly through the GMNMTCCs and through various conferences including the Ready-Shipping Conferences co-hosted by the Maritime and Ports Authority of Singapore.

The training workshops devised within GloMEEP for enabling national LPIR developments and MEEF related capacity building are based on use of previously tested methodologies under GloBallast Partnership as well as the IMO-KOICA initiative. Although these approaches are devised to ensure that national capacities are promoted for delivery of the project work plan, the same processes may be used by other countries, thus ensuring wider replicability and sustainability of the efforts. Furthermore, the training packages developed under GloMEEP have been shared and made available to and through the maritime training institute(s) within each LPC. The project has also showcased its results as part of its dissemination efforts using website, newsletter and other publications. Thus, other countries and regions can become familiar and use the experience. The project has further promoted dissemination and replication of its best practices and lessons learnt through promotional activities at the fringes of IMO meetings in particular the IMO MEPC meetings. This has provided a significant opportunity for presenting the GloMEEP results to a wider international audience.

3.8 UNDP and IMO Comparative Advantage

There is no direct discussion in the Project Document regarding the UNDP comparative advantage in being the Implementing Agency for this project. However, UNDP has many years of experience working in the International Waters arena and is best placed to provide support to a development-related project of this nature which will need to work closely with many stakeholders and particularly the private sector. UNDP has an established partnership already with IMO through the successful GloBallast Project. This relationship between the two UN agencies has worked well and could therefore be expected to continue to do so throughout the GloMEEP project. UNDP has the advantage of having country offices in all of the countries/regions being addressed by GloMEEP which can be called on to assist with any challenges or concerns at the national level. IMO has already demonstrated its comparative advantage in projects of this nature through its rigorous administrative support processes (procurement, contracting, legal advice, awareness and outreach, etc.). it is also one of the few UN agencies that has direct linkages and liaison with the private sector and is able to talk directly with the maritime industry. This has proved to be enormously advantageous in the negotiation of agreements with industry such as the Global Industry Alliance which is a key component of GloMEEP. The annual MEPC meetings at IMO headquarters provide an excellent backdrop for showcasing GloMEEP delivery and successes and for raising issues and concerns with and by the country representation. The MEPC also provides a very valuable route for awareness-raising and outreach to the countries and the observers.


Tag: Emission Reduction Energy Effectiveness Sustainability Knowledge management Partnership Programme Synergy Programme/Project Design Project and Programme management Strategic Positioning Civil Societies and NGOs Country Government Private Sector Capacity Building

7.

4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 Adaptive Management

The Project required the countries to undertake an emission assessment following which they would develop a National Maritime Energy Efficiency Strategy. However, due to time constraints and funding for travel into or within countries to provide this sort of support, the two were combined into one exercise so that the consultants merged their input and dealt with both sequentially while in-country. In some cases, the Strategy was developed before an Emission Assessment had been undertaken, but this proved to be problematic as the Strategy would then often need to be revised. At least one LPC noted that they had started drafting their Strategy before the ‘How To’ guides had been received and they did not have the in-country workshop on how to use the guides until after their draft Strategy was completed so they then had to amend the Strategy. To put this in context however, this country was already welladvanced in developing its compliance legislation for Annex VI prior to the Project starting and needed a Strategy in place to do this. Having such a country as an LPC was very valuable for the Project however as they could share their experiences and lessons from this process with the Project and with other LPCs. One of the overriding problems that stalled the Emission Assessments initially and obliged a number of the LPCs to move ahead with their Strategies was the inaccessibility to the data necessary to make such an assessment. Some LPCs cited the lack of legislation empowering any one government agency or their representative from having access to Ports and their resources or data bases which prevented the studies from moving ahead. The project was constantly having to adapt to these scenarios and amendments primarily due to the time and funding constraints. However, several LPCs did praise the Project for assisting them and helping them to find the appropriate data and identify how to capture it and use it successfully. Many of them did not even realise they had any data available. Most LPCs felt that the development of new Data Collection Systems was a priority. 


Tag: Energy Environment Policy Efficiency Knowledge management Policies & Procedures Project and Programme management Capacity Building Data and Statistics

8.

4.2 Partnership Arrangements

The major partnership arrangements for GloMEEP were with its Lead Pilot Countries. GloMEEP supported ten Lead Pilot Countries through: • Legal, policy and institutional reforms • Awareness raising and capacity-building activities • Establishment of public-private partnerships to support low carbon shipping 

The Lead Pilot Countries (LPCs) of the GloMEEP project are Argentina, China, Georgia, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, Morocco, Panama, Philippines and South Africa. Within each of the Lead Pilot Countries for the GloMEEP project there is a National Focal Point (at the senior management/political level) and a National Coordinator (for day-to-day management and technical interaction). However, the actual level of the persons filling these positions in each of the LPCs can differ considerably from country to country which can also impact on national delivery and engagement. Also, the project came to realize that these positions may frequently change during the lifetime of the Project as incumbents came and went within the national administrative structure. In this context it was important to always keep both the NFPs and the National Coordinators closely informed and involved in the Project activities so as to have some continuity and ‘memory’ of the Project and its outputs. One other hurdle that arose from this process was that the entry point for the Project to the LPCs was mainly through some form of maritime administration bodies which generally deal only with shipping. This frequently meant that, even for port-related workshops, the LPCs tended to nominate shipping people and not persons from the port authorities or the terminals.

All of the ten LPCs were involved with the GloMEEP Project from its inception. Some, particularly China, were also engaged with IMO over the planning and design of the GloMEEP project. As China had already developed its national legislation for Annex VI and was well advanced in compliance, it became one of the focal LPCs hosting and delivering training workshops (see Annex 7.2 – List of Workshops Delivered by the GloMEEP Project During Project Lifetime) and specifically hosted the train-the trainers workshop which was a single ‘global’ activity (i.e. for all of the LPCs to attend). The final workshop for GloMEEP focusing on data collection systems for fuel consumption will also be held in China along with the final Global project Task Force Meeting in November 2018.

As with all such projects that has partnerships with countries to deliver certain activities, some countries tend to be more proactive and efficient and other less so. Unfortunately, for the PCU this often means investing significantly greater time an effort on the less engaged countries for a smaller return in terms of their input and achievement. In the case if GloMEEP, two particular Lead Pilot Countries were problematic. One presented bureaucratic hurdles and closed doors at the senior management level which prevented the PCU from properly engaging with the appropriate scientific and technical experts in-country until well into the project lifetime. Once the project had ‘broken through’ the high-level bureaucracy, the in-country expertise was found to be of a very high quality and extremely supportive in the context of implementing workshops and providing in-country consultants and experts to support project activities. The other LPC barely engaged at all, at any level. The Evaluator was unable to communicate with this latter country during the evaluation process to discuss the problems and concerns. This raised an overall issue within the project that is relevant to other, future projects of this nature. At what point, when it has become apparent that a ‘pilot’ or ‘demonstration’ country is merely taxing the resources and using up excessive valuable time on the part of the PCU does the Project decide that it can no longer invest the time and money in that country and that the resources should go to a more deserving country?


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Emission Reduction Energy Effectiveness Sustainability Implementation Modality Knowledge management Partnership Policies & Procedures Project and Programme management Results-Based Management Private Sector Capacity Building Technology Data and Statistics

9.

4.2 Partnership Arrangements (continuation)

The Institute of Marine Engineering (IMarEST)7 is another Strategic Partner that has worked closely with the GloMEEP project. IMarEST has a Special Interest Group that aims to understand shipping’s role in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution including black carbon. Specific areas of interest are estimating current and future emissions, measures to control emissions, their effectiveness and options for implementation. IMarEST has produced a number of formal guidance documents for GloMEEP including the Ship Emissions Toolkits on Rapid Assessment of Ship Emissions in the National Context and on Development of National Ship Emissions Reduction Strategy). It has a particular interest in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency.

The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore worked with IMO, UNDP and GEF as a Strategic Partner to host the Future-Ready Shipping Conference in Singapore in 2015 where GloMEEP was first launched. This two-day inaugural Future-Ready Shipping 2015 conference was the first of its kind. Co-organized by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and IMO, the event provided a dedicated forum for maritime leaders and professionals to review the latest technologies available for improved energy efficiency of ships and, more importantly, to discuss how to facilitate successful technology transfers between countries and increase the take-up of maritime technologies worldwide. The conference aimed to support the implementation of Regulation 23 of MARPOL Annex VI on the promotion of technical co-operation and transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships, which requires administrations that are Parties to MARPOL Annex VI to co-operate and collaborate actively with other Parties, subject to its national laws, regulations and policies, to promote the development and transfer of technology and exchange of information to States, which request technical assistance, particularly developing States. The IMO Secretary-General visited the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore in 2016 noted that ‘It is important that Member States work together on regional matters and stand ready to support IMO’s work. Singapore is a valued Member State in this respect. MPA is a strategic partner in the Global Maritime Energy Efficiency Partnerships (GloMEEP) project, which supports the uptake and implementation of energy-efficiency measures for shipping. As part of this partnership, MPA and IMO co-organised the inaugural Future-Ready Shipping conference in 2015’.

This was followed with a second Future-Ready Shipping Conference in 2017 on Maritime Technology Transfer and Capacity-Building. The Conference looked at future collaborations that can drive discussions towards identifying opportunities that can have an impact on the shipping industry as it moves towards decarbonization. The event also included sessions covering the latest trends in maritime and port energy efficient technologies; the regulatory framework; and market access and potential solutions to meeting countries' needs in capacity-building and technology transfer. During the conference, it was announced that the Global Industry Alliance (GIA), a group of maritime stakeholders supporting transitioning shipping and its related industries towards a low carbon future, has welcomed two new members: Bureau Veritas and the Port of Rotterdam. Following the Conference, the GloMEEP project took the opportunity to hold a workshop on the "Development of maritime energy efficiency and emissions strategies and their implementation".


Tag: Emission Reduction Energy Monitoring and Evaluation Partnership Capacity Building Technology Data and Statistics

10.

4.3 Stakeholder Engagement

The overall feedback from the LPCs and the other stakeholders was that this Project had been comprehensive and farreaching in making sure that all concerned stakeholders (ports, shipping, surveyors, government departments, etc) were appropriately engaged in activities and in raising awareness and training. This role of the Project in bringing together diverse sectors to understand and undertake Emission Assessments and development of the Strategy had been highlighted through this Evaluation as a most valuable contribution,It is often the case in projects and issues of this nature that part of the challenge in moving things ahead at the national level centres on a lack of interaction and awareness between various Ministries and their activities. This becomes even more of a challenge when dealing with an issue like energy efficiency in the maritime sector as this further requires outreach and interaction between government agencies and the private sector. During the evaluation process it became clear that the GloMEEP project has made significant in-roads to address this constraint and to raise awareness and interaction nationally and across all sectors. The Global Industry Alliance (GIA) to Support Low Carbon Shipping is an alliance of maritime industry leaders, working together with the GEF-UNDP-IMO GloMEEP Project, providing technical expertise on tackling the challenges of decarbonizing the shipping sector.

The GIA was officially inaugurated on 29 June 2017 at a launch ceremony held at IMO Headquarters at the margins of the first meeting of the IMO Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG emissions from ships. In his GIA launch speech, IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim said the new alliance would help shipping to make its contribution towards greenhouse gas reduction and the mitigation of climate change, a key target for the United Nations under its Sustainable Development Goals11 . Current agreements between GloMEEP and the GIA Members are for two years and expire in June 2019. According to the PCU, there is always good attendance of the membership at the GIA meetings. The sixteen current members of the GIA include: • ABB Engineering (Shanghai) Ltd.; • Bureau Veritas; • DNV GL SE; • Grimaldi Group; • Lloyd’s Register EMEA; • MarineTraffic; • MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.; • Port of Rotterdam; • Ricardo UK Ltd; • Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.; • Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Limited; • Silverstream Technologies; • Stena AB; • Total Marine Fuels Pte Ltd; • Wärtsilä Corporation; and • Winterthur Gas & Diesel Ltd.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Emission Reduction Energy Effectiveness Efficiency Partnership Project and Programme management Country Government Private Sector Capacity Building Technology

11.

4.4 Feedback from M&E Activities used for Adaptive Management

The PMU and IMO have clearly been very proactive in using the feedback from the monitoring and evaluation activities as a means of adjusting and adaptively managing the Project and its activities. This has already been captured and covered in detail in Section 4.1: Adaptive Management. 


Tag: Emission Reduction Energy Efficiency Global Environment Facility fund Government Cost-sharing Human and Financial resources Knowledge management Monitoring and Evaluation Policies & Procedures Procurement Project and Programme management Capacity Building

12.

4.6 Monitoring and Evaluation: Design at Entry and at Implementation

The Project had the usual fairly robust M&E Framework and Plan with an associated budget. The budget allocation for the M&E work plan was a little on the ‘thin’ side, totalling $80,000. The Evaluation has reviewed all of the PIRs, Quarterly Reports, Task Force reports etc. for the lifetime of the Project. It is apparent that the PCU has been quite systematic in delivering these reports and minutes.

Some of the issues that arose during the relatively short but inevitably frenzied lifetime of the project (in terms of delivery) might have been resolved if the Project had undertaken a Mid-Term Review. The Project Document notes that: Due to the medium size of this two-year project, the independent Mid-Term Evaluation will not take place. Instead, the mid-term report will be prepared by PCU that would determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this report will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term.

Two points are noted here. A. Medium Sized Projects are not exempt from Mid Term Reviews although the Project Document was formally adopted by both UNDP and GEF so, in this case, it was justifiable for the project to bypass this process, although unwise, and B. The Project should instead have undertaken a detailed internal review for ‘steering ‘purposes and to improve implementation. This did not happen. Mitigating circumstances do prevail to a limited extent in that the project was both under-funded and the PCU staff were over-worked and had significant time constraints. Nevertheless, there is a lesson to be captured here for future projects and such a review at mid-term, even if only internal, could have been very valuable in addressing some of the issues that arise in this Evaluation.

GEF Tracking Tool: A GEF Tracking Tool was submitted at CEO Endorsement and a final one for the Terminal Evaluation in 2018. The Tracking Tool used was for Climate Change Mitigation projects rather than International Waters projects and this CC Tracking Tool does not have room allocated for explanatory notes alongside ratings.


Tag: Capacity Building Technology Urbanization Data and Statistics Monitoring and Evaluation Programme/Project Design Results-Based Management Theory of Change

13.

4.7 UNDP and Implementing Partner Implementation/Execution, Coordination and Operational Issues

In taking on the role of Executing Agency for this Project the International Maritime Organisation has demonstrated its commitment to support Annex VI and the new Greenhouse Gas Strategy as adopted by MEPC. The latter Strategy is often referred to as the ‘Paris Agreement for Shipping’ in that it sets clear targets for reduction and elimination of emissions from ships and maritime activities. Annex VI is exceedingly technical in nature and, probably more than any other aspect of MARPOL, requires highly specialised technical back-stopping from the Organisation. Furthermore, GloMEEP has expanded its remit in the Project Document to not only address adoption and implementation of Annex VI, but also to address the issues of Energy Efficiency in the context of Ports and, indeed, Port Emissions. This has been an important consideration as there is increasing pressure to reduce emissions and there impacts on communities by cities and, consequently, from ports. IMO has long recognised the fact that many developing countries cannot yet give full and complete effect to IMO’s instruments. For this reason and, as mandated by the Convention that created IMO, the Organization has established an Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme (ITCP), with the sole purpose of assisting countries in building up their human and institutional capacities for uniform and effective compliance with the Organization’s regulatory framework12 . By fostering capacity-building in the maritime sector, the ITCP is crucial for assisting developing countries to implement IMO instruments for safer and more secure shipping, enhanced environmental protection and facilitation of international maritime traffic. The importance of the ITCP increases further with amendments to existing and the development of new instruments by IMO, in which the particular needs of, and impact on, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are taken into account. The activities and delivery from the ITCP from part of the annual discussions of the MEPC by which the Committee and member countries are both updated and are lobbied for their opinions and feedback on technical cooperation issues. At the latest meeting of the MEPC, the Committee formally noted the appreciation expressed by many delegations on the various technical cooperation activities implemented by the Secretariat under the ITCP and stressed their importance for improving implementation of IMO environment-related conventions.

More specifically, the MEPC also formally noted in the minutes the following points in its latest 2018 meeting relating to GloMEEP and Maritime Energy Efficiency Partnership: 12.5 The Committee expressed its appreciation for the GEF-UNDP-IMO Global Maritime Energy Efficiency Partnerships (GloMEEP) and the IMO-European Union Global Maritime Technology Cooperation Centre Network (GMN) Projects and noted the important roles of these initiatives in supporting the implementation of MARPOL Annex VI. 12.6 Noting that the GloMEEP and GMN projects are currently scheduled to be completed in December 2018 and December 2019 respectively, the Committee requested the Secretariat to explore how these initiatives could be further supported beyond these time frames. 12.7 The Committee also took note of the interest from several Member States to establish additional MTCCs in new regions. In this regard, the Committee requested the Secretariat to continue its efforts to mobilize financial resources, including from multilateral donors such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The Committee also requested the Secretariat to consider establishing a dedicated multi-donor voluntary trust fund to support GloMEEP and GMN initiatives. 12.8 The Committee noted the updated information provided in MEPC 72/12/3 (Secretariat) on the work of the Global Industry Alliance to Support Low Carbon Shipping (GIA), established within the framework of the GloMEEP Project. 12.9 The Committee noted with appreciation the innovative work undertaken by the GIA, in particular, its potential role in supporting the goals of the Initial IMO Strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships and suggested that initiatives such as the GIA should be sustained into the future. 12.10 With regard to the action requested in paragraph 21 of document MEPC 72/12/3, the Committee noted the essential contributions that properly trained seafarers could make in ensuring energy-efficient operation of ships. Also, in view of the significant amendments introduced in MARPOL Annex VI in recent years, including the regulations on energy efficiency for ships, the Committee noted the benefits of expanding the standard of competence on environmental aspects contained in the Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code. The Committee therefore invited interested Member States to submit a proposal for a new output to a future session of the Committee in accordance with the Committees' method of work.


Tag: Emission Reduction Energy Effectiveness Efficiency Human and Financial resources Implementation Modality Operational Efficiency Partnership Project and Programme management

14.

5. PROJECT RESULTS

5.1 Overall Review of Delivery from Results Framework

In reviewing the Overall Objective itself it is fair to say that the Project has definitely been successful in Building Capacity in developing countries (the Lead Pilot Countries) in relation to their requirements for implementing technical and operational measures toward more energy efficient shipping (i.e. the assessments, strategies and ultimately the supporting legislation) and this will certainly make a significant contribution toward catalysing the overall reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the long-term, particularly if this can be further replicated across other countries and regions. In reviewing the targets set for the Overall Objective it is noted that they duplicate the targets set in the corresponding Components. This is not a useful practice and the targets for the overall objective should be broader in nature than those for the Components or Outcomes. The Project has supported all of the 10 LPCs in developing their Emissions Assessments. Despite problems with data access and capture, each LPC now has the capacity and technical ability to continue to strengthen and update these assessments. Ship Emissions Toolkits have been developed and rolled out for each of the LPCs. Furthermore, realising the need for Port Emission Guidelines and Toolkits (which were not originally part of this Project), the PCU and IMO have proactively included these as an additional ‘adaptive management’ requirement which goes significantly beyond the Project’s mandate as per the original Project Document (as well as the allocated resources). Based on this technical support and capacity building, each LPC has been assisted in developing its Maritime Energy Efficiency Strategy and, following this, the drafting of a legislative framework and roadmap to support such a strategy. All workshop packages are with LPCs for wider dissemination and have been shared regionally through the IMO GMN project and its Global Maritime Technology Cooperation Centres Network. The various toolkits and guides have been reported to all IMO Member States through the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) as and when they became available. This represents a prodigious and impressive amount of work on the part of the PCU and IMO. This is all the more remarkable in view of the unrealistic timescale and resources provided for these activities.

The overall delivery on capacity building has been substantial across all of the LPCs in the in area of shipping energy efficiency regulations and operational and technical measures. The in-country workshops have been perceived by the countries and the other consultant experts involved as being of a high quality and content. Furthermore, the ‘train-thetrainer’ activities have also been described as very valuable and helping to provide sustainability within countries and regions. A number of the workshop participants have gone on to deliver courses as consultants in their own right. A number of maritime institutions have been further capacitated within the LPCs which further strengthens the ability for replication and sustainability of activities. The level of awareness-raising and outreach by the GloMEEP project has also been remarkable as has the knowledge transfer and outreach. The PCU is to be applauded for adaptively managing a very difficult and demanding process which they inherited from the project document in the context of training and the number of workshops which they were expected to deliver in a 24-month period. The project will leave behind it a legacy of training and awareness materials which will be of undoubted value globally. The Project has created a very credible and effective Global Industry Alliance. Again, this is remarkable within the very limited timescale and realising that each member of the GIA negotiated its formal Agreement bilaterally with IMO. 16 members are now currently in the Alliance, with many more notable private sector names wishing to join. The existing 16 have already committed supportive funding to the Alliance and its activities as are discussed below. As per the Results Framework requirement for this component, the Project has indeed created lean and potentially sustainable management structures within the LPCs including active National Task Forces and identified responsible individuals within the Lead Agencies. Each PLC should now be well able to engage in national M&E activities for Maritime Energy Efficiency and steer the maritime GHG emissions agenda beyond GloMEEP and to sustain relevant efforts. OVERALL QUALITY OF PROJECT OUTCOMES: HIGHLY SATISFACTORY 


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Emission Reduction Energy Relevance Policies & Procedures Results-Based Management Capacity Building Technology SDG Integration

15.

5.3 Effectiveness

COMPONENT ONE: LEGAL, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS FOR GHG REDUCTIONS THROUGH IMPROVED ENERGY EFFICIENCY WITHIN MARITIME TRANSPORT SECTOR IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 

This Component of the Project has been very effective in assisting the countries to develop and implement their Emission Assessments and their National Maritime Energy Efficiency Strategies. These (particularly the latter) are mostly of a very high quality, although one or two countries have struggled to complete their baseline emissions assessment, mainly due to an absence of data or difficulties with accessing the data. All 10 LPCs have identified their Lead Agencies and have fully functional National Task Forces. The project has provided comprehensive tool kits, not only on ship’s emissions but also on port emissions and these have been widely distributed and used by the LPCs as well as being recommended by the MEPC for further distribution and use by all countries in achieving their compliance to Annex VI. Various stakeholders noted that one of the concrete successes of the project then was the delivery of lots of hands-on tools and materials which will have continued direct value and use to the LPCs as well as for other countries. At the start of the project, only 6 of the 10 LPCs had ratified Annex VI. Since then two more have been assisted into acceding (Philippines and South Africa). Argentina and Georgia are still moving toward accession which has been delayed in these two countries as a result of other pressing political priorities and possibly the continuing need for greater awareness and outreach at the policy level. Also, at the beginning of the Project, three countries had already formally adopted the required legislation. Since then, the other seven have been directly assisted by the Project in undertaking legal assessments and drafting their legislation. It will inevitably take time for the draft legislation to be adopted by those seven as the process for taking this through various forms of national Parliamentary approval takes considerable time and this was a very short project. Some of the draft legislation already needs updating before going for formal government approval as a result of amendments and expansions in Annex VI. Furthermore, once the Project has assisted with drafting the legislation it is then beyond the control or support of the Project as far as taking it to the LPC’s respective parliaments/cabinets. However, It would be both helpful and a useful monitor of GEF’s investment to track progress on these legislations and their adoption.

In summary, Component One delivery has been exceptional given the time constraints and all of the countries have been mobilised, motivated and supported in addressing their maritime energy efficiency commitments Rating by Component Delivery: Highly Satisfactory


Tag: Climate change governance Emission Reduction Energy Effectiveness Communication Knowledge management Policies & Procedures Capacity Building Advocacy

16.

5.3 Effectiveness (continuation)

COMPONENT THREE: PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TO CATALYSE INNOVATION AND R&D AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The Global industry Alliance was successfully launched in June 2017 and currently there are 16 industry companies that represent a variety of industry sectors (e.g. bulk cargo, oil and gas, cruise-lines, ports and terminals, energy efficiency related technology). This Alliance is committed to addressing the barriers to the adoption of energy efficient technologies and mechanisms. The presence of the Alliance has raised the awareness and public profile in the media in relation to energy efficiency in shipping and in ports, which has further raised the profile of the Project, GEF and the Implementing and Executing agencies (UNDP and IMO). There is a list of companies now that wish to join the Alliance, but the existing members wish to be cautious about not allowing the Alliance to become too big and cumbersome. However, most of the Alliance members agree that they do need more membership from ports and terminals. The current membership would prefer to focus on the delivery of their identified priority activities now, which are: 

A. The development of a protocol for validation of performance of energy efficiency technologies (EETs) This provides a good example of how the GloMEEP project, through the GIA, has been proactively addressing a significant problem for the industry. Current performance assessments and validations (such as propeller efficiency) do not present a level playing field. Because there are different mechanism and protocols for assessing and calculating the efficiency of new technologies, ship owners are extremely cautious about investing in such technology and there has generally been an air of mistrust in this respect. The GIA has made the MEPC aware of this problem and has further agreed on the need for a standard protocol on how to report the results from assessment of new technologies that could increase energy efficiency. GIA agreed that, when developing the E-Learning course, data analytics should be included to e.g. measure the effectiveness of the online training, track how many users have undertaken the course and the geographical distribution of users. GIA agreed that, to progress this subject matter, a ‘White Paper’ will be developed to support implementation and wider uptake of ISO 19030, which in turn will support increasing the transparency for buyers/ sellers of a wide range of EETs. This White Paper will be presented in a manner which is easy to understand, will be objective, and will clearly describe the challenges and complexities of the issue. The GIA Secretariat will develop the general structure and a first rough draft of the paper which will then be circulated to all GIA members for further input.

B. Training on the energy efficient operation of ships In relation to this training, GIA is developing an e-Learning tool for seafarers on energy efficiency and fuel reduction. Following the GIA conference call held on 17 October 2017 and the decision by the GIA TF to expand the E-Learning Course to also target shore-based personnel (as seafarers have limitations as to how much they can contribute to the efficient operation of ships), the GIA Secretariat has drafted a tender document which has been disseminated for bidding. 


Tag: Emission Reduction Energy Knowledge management Partnership Policies & Procedures Private Sector Capacity Building Technology Data and Statistics

17.

5.3 Effectiveness (continuation)

COMPONENT 4: MONITORING, LEARNING, ADAPTIVE FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

Component Four of the project follows the overall project management structure and the monitoring of progress as well as learning and evaluation for adaptive feedback. Some of this M&E process and its effectiveness is discussed in that relevant Section 3.10: Management Arrangements as well as Section 4.6: UNDP and Implementing Partner Implementation, Execution and Coordination. All of the LPCs established their National Task Forces early in the Project lifetime as well as identifying their National Focal Points and Project Coordinators, nearly all of which are considered to be active in the Project. Monitoring and evaluation of Project deliverables has followed the requirements of the Project Document with the exception of an internal Mid-term Review by the PCU and IMO. Project staff and LPC representation were present at the 8th GEF International Waters Conference in Sri Lanka in 2016, with an exhibit booth, where they also delivered a PowerPoint presentation and formed part of a review panel. The Evaluation notes that the internal mid-term review as defined in the Project Document (ProDoc Section 5: Monitoring Framework and Evaluation – Mid-term of Project Cycle. P110) was over-looked. This was unfortunate as this could have been very useful as a point when the project could stop, catch its breath, and review what had been achieved and what needed to be addressed in the light of lessons learned already. Such mid-term reviews, even if not independent, can be very valuable as a means of re-directing and steering project efforts. Also, it was noted that there has been no reference or link to GloMEEP on the IW:LEARN website, which is a slight flaw in achieving this target and which should be captured as a lesson for future International Waters Projects.


Tag: Communication Knowledge management Monitoring and Evaluation

18.

5.4 Efficiency

There is no doubt that this Project has been highly ‘efficient’ in the Evaluation context which considers the extent to which the results have been delivered with the least costly resources possible. Indeed, the Project had little choice in view of the limited resources provided. The Project has done a superlative job in leveraging additional funding and bringing in partners to assist in lightening a very heavy workload. This is already covered in sufficient detail in the discussion under Section 4.4 - Project Finance (above). In the context of overall management and running of the Project, this has undoubtedly been very efficient, with stakeholders frequently noting the excellent support given by the PCU and IMO not only with awareness issues and guidelines but with actual ‘on-the-ground’ practical support activities. Nearly all of the stakeholders commented on the ‘excellent’ working relationship that had been established between the LPCs, IMO and the MEPC through the Project. OVERALL EFFICIENCY: HIHGLY SATISFACTORY

5.5 Country Ownership

All of the LPCs interviewed during this evaluation confirmed that the project is aligned with their national priorities for maritime energy efficiency and the reduction of air pollution from shipping and ports. They were all highly appreciative of the capacity building provided to each country as well as the raising of awareness by the Project via the National Task Forces. Table 3 (Current Status of Annex VI Compliance In The GloMEEP Lead Pilot Countries) In Section 4.2 – Partnership Arrangements (above) demonstrates the progress made by the countries which is a reflection of their commitment to the project and its objectives. All ten PLCs have undertaken the emissions assessment (Jamaica is just completing theirs) and their national maritime energy efficiency strategies/policies. The seven countries which did not have legislation in place for compliance with Annex VI of MARPOL have completed their draft legislative framework during the Project, which are now ready for submission for national enactment. All twenty-seven reports where made available to the Evaluator. It is also important to note that country ownership has been significantly expanded and enhanced through capacity building and awareness at the national level which has then strengthened of national representation into IMO and particularly the MEPC. The LPCs are now much more active and informed and can engage much more effectively in the MEPC and this is reflected by the adoption of the MEPC of the GHG Emissions Strategy as well as the frequent references by country representatives at the MEPC to the work of the GloMEEP project. All of the LPCs made specific comment during the evaluation interview as to how valuable this entire process has been and how they would wish to maintain the effort.


Tag: Emission Reduction Energy Efficiency Communication Knowledge management Ownership Capacity Building

19.

5.7 Mainstreaming and Cross-Cutting

This Project was not intended to deal with issues related to human rights, minorities, disabilities, vulnerable groups or specifically gender equality/empowerment of women as such. In its actual implementation, however, the project did use a very respectable balance of female staff and consultants. The 2018 Project Implementation Review addresses this issue as follows: Shipping has historically been a male-dominated industry and that tradition runs long and deep. However, IMO is making concerted efforts to help the industry move on from that tradition and to help women achieve a representation within the maritime industry and particularly in leadership roles. The GloMEEP Project Coordination Unit is 100% staffed by women. Almost 50% of the GloMEEP LPCs representatives (National Focal Points and National Project Coordinators) are represented by women. The GloMEEP PCU has consistently encouraged female lecturers in the delivery of national and global workshops – to provide an example, 10 out of 14 consultants who facilitated the delivery of a series of workshops to address emissions in ports were women. The participation of women in GloMEEP organized workshops is also encouraged. Approximately 20% of all participants trained so far under the GloMEEP Project have been female. 

The Project did not have a focus on natural disasters directly other than those that might be associated indirectly with climate change. This latter issue (climate change) is definitely cross-cutting throughout the project and is effectively a main focus of the Project. No social or environmental risks were identified as arising from the Project. It is noteworthy that the GloMEEP project was the first IW GEF project to jointly make us of both International Waters funding as well as funding from Climate Change Mitigation through the GEF. Thus cross-cutting between these two portfolios. 


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Emission Reduction Sustainability Gender Equality Gender Mainstreaming Gender Parity Integration Partnership Capacity Building Jobs and Livelihoods Technology Data and Statistics

20.

5.9 Catalytic Role

The Project has catalysed the bringing together of the relevant government departments, ministries and other stakeholders at the national level, including the private sector. It has also catalysed stronger involvement at the policy level in IMO issues and improved the potential for engagement by national members at IMO meetings including the MEPC. The Project has also catalysed the development of Public-Private Partnerships in the LPCs. The National Task Forces in a number of the countries brought together government departments and ministries with public sector representation from shipping, ports and technology. Several countries highlighted this as a very valuable contribution which has broken down the ‘silo’ management approach and catalysed stronger cooperation and awareness across the sectors. LPCs also noted that the Data Collection Systems for Emission Assessments had not been developed even in those countries like China which were well-advanced in their compliance to Annex VI. The project has provided this valuable service which is the foundation of a long-term, effective monitoring for compliance process. One other very important catalytic role that the Project has delivered is in the area of ‘train-the-trainers’. Many of the participants who have received training in earlier GloMEEP workshops have gone on to support the delivery of subsequent related activities and training. Possibly one of the main catalytic role that this project has achieved is the bringing together diverse sector of industry to identify their priority issues related to maritime energy efficiency and to fund activities that aim to demonstrate mitigation techniques. These are expected to bring about substantial changes in industry practice to support such mitigation. One example will be the ‘just-in-time’ practices that the ports and shipping industry hope to start demonstrating and ‘proving’ in the coming months.


Tag: Climate change governance Emission Reduction Energy Impact Monitoring and Evaluation Partnership Policies & Procedures Results-Based Management Capacity Building Data and Statistics

Recommendations
1

6.3 Recommendations and Proposal for Future Directions

The following Recommendations are targeted at either the Executing Agency, the Implementing Agency, the countries or a combination of these entities

R1. First and foremost among any recommendations must be the obvious practical need for a further phase of GloMEEP. The Project has created strong ownership by countries and industry as well as a momentum toward implementing Annex VI and the new MEPC Greenhouse Gas Strategy. Many of the following recommendations relate to logical further activities and work required which could be captured and delivered through such a second phase

2

R2. Although Legal frameworks for national legislation have been drafted, these still need to be adopted by the countries and this would be a valuable exercise for further support.

3

R3. A wealth of valuable tools and guidance materials have been developed and employed successfully by the 10 LPCs. It is important now that these toolkits and guidelines are not only made available to other countries aiming to comply with Annex VI but that they are delivered effectively through appropriate regional workshops to assist those same countries that were not part of the original GloMEEP Project. In short, a GloMEEP replication process needs to now take place beyond the original LPCs

4

R4. GIA is just getting started but is showing tremendous buy-in and ownership from industry with a dedicated group of enthusiastic representatives. It would be a waste of the initial investment in time and finances and it would send a very poor signal to the private sector if the plug were to be pulled on this innovative and unique process just as it is showing positive accomplishments and delivering real benefits. The priority activities adopted by GIA and their commitment to fund them is a major step toward implementing Annex VI. Every effort should be made by IMO to ensure that, with the closure of GloMEEP in December, the secretariat function that the project provided to GIA can continue.

5

R5. The countries have requested more activities related to technology transfer that can help them reduced emissions from ships and at the port level. Specific efforts should be made to provide more assistance with identifying appropriate technology, both tried-and-tested as well as innovative development. If a further phase were to be implemented, it would need to include a mechanisms for capture and transfer of emerging technologies related to maritime energy efficiency. Closer linkages with the Maritime Technical Cooperation Centres would provide a valuable vehicle to bring such activities and support into the regions.

6

R6. GloMEEP original designed to focus on Annex VI - Chapter 4. Energy Efficiency. National legislation, however, needs to address the entire Annex and not just one part. IMO has now set a global limit for sulphur in fuel oil used on board ships to come into effect as of 1st January 2020. This will now require a significant support process similar to many of the GloMEEP activities if the developing counties are going to meet their compliance requirements.

7

R7. Further training on monitoring of compliance and enforcement of Annex VI and emissions control as well as the compulsory data collection systems within the LPCs and with a view to replication

8

R8. The need for more effective monitoring of ship emissions (especial as part of the compulsory IMO data collection system) through better interaction between local municipal agencies responsible for air quality monitoring and national agencies tasked with manage emissions

9

R9. The relatively new initial GHG Strategy adopted by MEPC in 2018 represents a framework for Member States, setting out the future vision for international shipping, the levels of ambition to reduce GHG emissions and guiding principles; and includes candidate short-, mid- and long-term further measures with possible timelines and their impacts on States. Once again, these are energy efficiency related issues that need to be followed up with support to the developing countries beyond the life of GloMEEP

10

R10. Great collaboration between shipping, ports and terminal and nationally responsible government agencies with regard to GHG reductions and the new GHG strategy

11

R11. In country assessments of availability of compliant fuels including comparative assessment of scrubbers (EGC systems) vs fuel quality as a measure to improve air quality. This should also cover the need for reception facilities and disposal mechanisms for waste generated by EGC systems

12

R12. The GloMEEP Project should engage with IW:LEARN and Grid Arundel (who manage their website) to ensure that it has links into GloMEEP and some information on GloMEEP on the IW:LEARN website. They should also discuss the achievements of GloMEEP with a view to developing an appropriate experience note on a relevant subject such as private sector engagement

1. Recommendation:

6.3 Recommendations and Proposal for Future Directions

The following Recommendations are targeted at either the Executing Agency, the Implementing Agency, the countries or a combination of these entities

R1. First and foremost among any recommendations must be the obvious practical need for a further phase of GloMEEP. The Project has created strong ownership by countries and industry as well as a momentum toward implementing Annex VI and the new MEPC Greenhouse Gas Strategy. Many of the following recommendations relate to logical further activities and work required which could be captured and delivered through such a second phase

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
IMO and UNDP agree with this recommendation. Several IMO member States have also formally requested a further phase of GloMEEP especially considering the role of GloMEEP Phase 2 in supporting IMO’s initial GHG strategy. The IMO Secretariat has therefore taken a proactive step of hiring a consultant to develop a PIF for a follow-up phase (GloBEEEMS), building in particular on the public-private partnership success of the GIA mechanism.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/16]
IMO 2019/12 No Longer Applicable [Justification: As per message from Team Lead for Water & Oceans, the comment remains the same. GEF still cannot finance a new phase in absence of CCM STAR funding from LDCs. Therefore, this is being marked as 'no longer applicable'.]
History
2. Recommendation:

R2. Although Legal frameworks for national legislation have been drafted, these still need to be adopted by the countries and this would be a valuable exercise for further support.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Noted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
IMO will continue to use its ITCP arm to support and encourage GloMEEP LPCs to adopt the national legislation although any national legislation adoption by the respective parliaments of the countries is beyond IMO’s control. IMO’s initial GHG strategy envisages countries adopting a national action plan (NAP) and it is expected that adoption of national legislations would be the first priority in the NAPs of many of the countries. Once again, a follow-up phase would have catalysed such a political engagement by the countries.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed No follow-up GEF phase envisaged at present (see comment in Recommendation #1) History
3. Recommendation:

R3. A wealth of valuable tools and guidance materials have been developed and employed successfully by the 10 LPCs. It is important now that these toolkits and guidelines are not only made available to other countries aiming to comply with Annex VI but that they are delivered effectively through appropriate regional workshops to assist those same countries that were not part of the original GloMEEP Project. In short, a GloMEEP replication process needs to now take place beyond the original LPCs

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Noted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
IMO has a global programme on energy efficiency under its ITCP umbrella. IMO will, as much as possible, utilise the toolkits in any future workshops organised under this global programme. Furthermore, IMO will utilise these tools in the regional and sub-regional workshops held by the Global Maritime Technology Cooperation Centres (MTCC) established by IMO.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed IMO continues to utilize the GloMEEP tools and guidance through its ongoing ITCP programme and MTCCs. History
4. Recommendation:

R4. GIA is just getting started but is showing tremendous buy-in and ownership from industry with a dedicated group of enthusiastic representatives. It would be a waste of the initial investment in time and finances and it would send a very poor signal to the private sector if the plug were to be pulled on this innovative and unique process just as it is showing positive accomplishments and delivering real benefits. The priority activities adopted by GIA and their commitment to fund them is a major step toward implementing Annex VI. Every effort should be made by IMO to ensure that, with the closure of GloMEEP in December, the secretariat function that the project provided to GIA can continue.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Noted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
IMO places a high importance on this pioneering initiative. GIA was expected to continue till June 2019 and hence for this reason IMO requested to UNDP an extension of GloMEEP beyond December 2018 so that it can continue to facilitate the GIA activities. IMO has secured a full one-year extension from UNDP and this will ensure that GIA can continue to function. The one-year timeframe will provide enough time to identify a strategy to sustain GIA beyond end of 2019.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed GIA activities continue with sustainable finance from both the GloMEEP project and the 17 involved GIA companies. History
5. Recommendation:

R5. The countries have requested more activities related to technology transfer that can help them reduced emissions from ships and at the port level. Specific efforts should be made to provide more assistance with identifying appropriate technology, both tried-and-tested as well as innovative development. If a further phase were to be implemented, it would need to include a mechanisms for capture and transfer of emerging technologies related to maritime energy efficiency. Closer linkages with the Maritime Technical Cooperation Centres would provide a valuable vehicle to bring such activities and support into the regions.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Noted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Technology Transfer would have to happen between private sector as neither IMO nor governments hold IP rights. What IMO and countries could do is to create an enabling environment for flow of technologies and facilitate technology demonstrations. IMO has already incorporated this component in its new draft PIF for possible GEF7 financing. This will also be a focus of any bilateral TC projects that IMO would be implementing in the future. Moreover, the IMO established MTCCS will continue to be the centre of excellence in various regions to facilitate technology cooperation and technology uptake.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed While the GEF follow-up to GloMEEP could not be realized, IMO mobilized EU 10 million “Capacity Building for Climate Mitigation in the Maritime Industry” project which includes activities supporting technology transfer as per the recommendation. History
6. Recommendation:

R6. GloMEEP original designed to focus on Annex VI - Chapter 4. Energy Efficiency. National legislation, however, needs to address the entire Annex and not just one part. IMO has now set a global limit for sulphur in fuel oil used on board ships to come into effect as of 1st January 2020. This will now require a significant support process similar to many of the GloMEEP activities if the developing counties are going to meet their compliance requirements.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

GloMEEP has taken this important point into consideration in the development of relevant tools (e.g. the Guide for incorporation of MARPOL Annex VI into national law) and will continue to use these tools for activities delivered under IMO’s ITCP arm.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
IMO will also ensure that any follow-up phase of GloMEEP will, from the outset, take this legal aspect into account so as to avoid any confusion in the drafting of national legislation.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed Also incorporated into aforementioned EU-IMO project. History
7. Recommendation:

R7. Further training on monitoring of compliance and enforcement of Annex VI and emissions control as well as the compulsory data collection systems within the LPCs and with a view to replication

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
IMO will, using funds under its global programme on energy efficiency under its ITCP umbrella, continue to deliver relevant trainings, using the GloMEEP tools and materials as a basis. Furthermore, IMO will utilise these tools in the regional and sub-regional workshops held by the Global Maritime Technology Cooperation Centres (MTCC) established by IMO.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed Tools being further disseminated to MTCCs thru the new EU-IMO Maritime Energy Efficiency project History
8. Recommendation:

R8. The need for more effective monitoring of ship emissions (especial as part of the compulsory IMO data collection system) through better interaction between local municipal agencies responsible for air quality monitoring and national agencies tasked with manage emissions

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Noted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Recognizing that the fuel consumption data collected from 1.1.2019 will provide the basis for any further policy decisions that IMO Member States will adopt: IMO will, using the newly developed GloMEEP training package on the IMO Data Collection System (DCS), continue to deliver DCS trainings to ensure all stakeholders can support the effective monitoring and reporting of data. IMO is also planning to include a major DCS component in any GloMEEP follow-up phase so as to ensure that the new DCS provisions under MARPOL Annex V are fully and effectively implemented.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed GloMEEP follow-on phase on hold pending GEF decisions on CCM/IW project funding History
9. Recommendation:

R9. The relatively new initial GHG Strategy adopted by MEPC in 2018 represents a framework for Member States, setting out the future vision for international shipping, the levels of ambition to reduce GHG emissions and guiding principles; and includes candidate short-, mid- and long-term further measures with possible timelines and their impacts on States. Once again, these are energy efficiency related issues that need to be followed up with support to the developing countries beyond the life of GloMEEP

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Agree with this and IMO will continue to endeavour to follow-up on the implementation of IMO GHG strategy. Any future projects will also have the action plans of the strategy as the basis of implementation. The GIA will also continue supporting development of measures to operationalize IMO’s initial GHG Strategy through submission of relevant proposals and ideas to MEPC.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed New EU-IMO project incorporates this recommendation and action History
Agree with this and IMO will continue to endeavour to follow-up on the implementation of IMO GHG strategy. Any future projects will also have the action plans of the strategy as the basis of implementation. The GIA will also continue supporting development of measures to operationalize IMO’s initial GHG Strategy through submission of relevant proposals and ideas to MEPC.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed New EU-IMO project incorporates this recommendation and action History
10. Recommendation:

R10. Great collaboration between shipping, ports and terminal and nationally responsible government agencies with regard to GHG reductions and the new GHG strategy

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Agree and this will, in the meantime and until a follow-up phase of GloMEEP has been secured, be ensured through further collaboration of IMO within the GIA that has embarked on several projects that will support reductions of emissions from both shipping and in ports. Work of the GIA will also continue to feed into IMO’s wider work to reduce emissions, e.g. by submitting information and proposals on measures to operationalize IMO’s initial GHG strategy.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed GIA’s work continues via GEF project extension and finance mobilized from the 17 GIA member companies. History
11. Recommendation:

R11. In country assessments of availability of compliant fuels including comparative assessment of scrubbers (EGC systems) vs fuel quality as a measure to improve air quality. This should also cover the need for reception facilities and disposal mechanisms for waste generated by EGC systems

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Noted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
IMO will take this recommendation on-board when drafting the follow-up GloMEEP project proposal and consider whether these type of assessments would be feasible and fall in-line with the donor’s strategic directions / objectives. In light of the importance of the 2020 sulphur cap, IMO will also consider how Member States could in the meantime and before a follow-up phase of GloMEEP is secured, be supported in preparations up to 2020.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/16]
IMO 2020/12 No Longer Applicable [Justification: As per message from Team Lead for Water & Oceans, GEF still cannot finance a new phase in absence of CCM STAR funding from LDCs. Therefore, this is being marked as 'no longer applicable']
History
12. Recommendation:

R12. The GloMEEP Project should engage with IW:LEARN and Grid Arundel (who manage their website) to ensure that it has links into GloMEEP and some information on GloMEEP on the IW:LEARN website. They should also discuss the achievements of GloMEEP with a view to developing an appropriate experience note on a relevant subject such as private sector engagement

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/12/14]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Agree with this and IMO will engage with IW:LEARN and Grid Arundel to ensure that it has links to GloMEEP and some information on the project is on the IW:LEARN website. IMO will also discuss with IW:LEARN development of an experience note to ensure sharing of best practices and lessons learned from GloMEEP’s highly successful establishment and management of its public-private partnership, the GIA.
[Added: 2019/01/04] [Last Updated: 2020/02/07]
IMO 2019/12 Completed Links/info added to IW:LEARN website History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org