1. Results of NAPA Group’s Survey
Ship Owners, Operators and Charterers and their
readiness for 2013 IMO Ship Energy Efficiency
Management Plan (SEEMP) legislation
Prepared by BLUE Communications October 2012

2. Respondent Demographics
Asia Europe Middle East North America 1-5 5-15 15-30 30-60 60+
20% 11%
27% 29%
51 usable responses from Number of16%
8% Country relevant companies were Vessels
received, this page shows the Responsible For
types, size and location of 20% 24%
45%
companies as well as the job
titles of specific individuals who
contributed.
6%4% 6%
19% 10%
Organisation 8%
35% Type 54% Job Role
Other 13%
Ship Owner
Superintendent
Engineer/Master
38% 6%
2% Owner, Manager & Charterer
Technical Management
Ship Manager
Ship & Fleet Management
Owner & Manager
HSQE/Environmental Manager
Cherterer
Director, Managing Director other Exec Management

3. SEEMP and The Industry
81% of respondent were confident in their understanding of SEEMP legislation
European respondents were 6 times more likely to lack confidence in their own or their
companies’ understanding than Asian respondents
“It is not a gutsy regulation and there is no requirement for
improvements.” “Absolutely needed!”
“Good regulation” “One more booklet on the shelf”
“The regulation is needed to make ship owners and charterers
more responsible to society.”
“Long Overdue” “Too prone to copy/paste”
RESPONDENT COMMENT “One of the best practices” “Good but too vague”
“A step to a more sustainable world”
Some superintendents, masters and engineers reported that they didn’t know what their
organisation’s plan for implementing SEEMP - some companies may need to communicate
compliance decisions better if they have already made decisions
Understanding of SEEMP did not seem to vary by job roles. Confidence, or lack thereof, was
experienced by Environmental Managers as frequently as engineers and masters.

4. Prepared for SEEMP
79% of companies have their SEEMP plans in place
RESPONDENT INDICATIONS
KEY INSIGHTS BASED ON
Asia has the lowest levels of preparation - only 69%
North America was the most prepared at 89%
The biggest factor in preparation was company size
95% of those responsible for 30+ vessels already had a plan with remaining 5% in final
stages
43% of the smaller companies (5-15 vessels) had no plan in place
Asia did not have any perceived information gap around SEEMP, with 75% of those that were
unprepared indicating that this was down to careful consideration of options
The need for more information made up 67% of respondent answers as to why they
were unprepared in Europe
Not a single respondent indicated that SEEMP compliance was not a priority for their
organisation; neither did any respondent indicate a feeling that their organisation had plenty
of time left to devise and implement their plans.

5. SEEMP processes in use
14% No one method has a majority over what the
5% 36%
industry will be using to implement SEEMP
But size matters, the largest companies are
overwhelmingly choosing electronic solutions
45% with smaller companies choosing paper
Paper Electronic Unsure Paper & Electronic
SEEMP method chosen by number of vessels:
0-5 5-15 15-30 30-60 60+
25% 8% 15%
33% 33% 33% 15%
42%
50%
67% 67%
17% 33% 62%

6. The reason behind the choice
Electronic SEEMP Paper SEEMP
“Reduce the reporting burden on the seafarer” “Simple” “Usual format for plans on board”
“Fast, reliable, cost effective and ecology friendly” “Easy to distribute and update” “Cheapest” “Cost effective” “Convenience and the cost”
“Ease of record keeping” “Reduces use of paper” “They do not have web access”
“Easier to handle hard copies until such time as we are sure about or goals
“Compliment current Energy Management System” and KPI”
Greater efficiency improvements
Lack of web/IT infrastructure
Complement current systems
Stopgap to electronic system
Environmental reasons
Ease of use/operation
Usual approach
Crew Welfare
Cost
Cost
Ease
Although 15-20% savings are available through electronic SEEMP 60% of respondents were
not aware of this potential benefit
Of those who did not yet have a plan in place, 70% of individuals felt that electronic SEEMP
was the best option.

7. The knowledge disconnect
One of the most vital findings of this survey was the levels of knowledge of the savings achievable with electronic
SEEMP solutions and how they correlate with the decision to use electronic systems - and therefore by vessel size.
In fact the numbers of those implementing electronically overtakes those that are aware of the savings benefits of
electronic implementation.
Implementing electronic SEEMP
Aware of possible savings
0-5 5-15 15-30 30-60 60+
When we look at the answers given by those implementing SEEMP electronically we can see that the vast majority made
their decision based on current systems in place and ease. This means they may have been unaware of the potential
savings they could achieve when making their decision on SEEMP implementation, a hypothesis corroborated by the data
showing that of those implementing electronic SEEMP there is a significant percentage that are unaware of the benefits.

8. Conclusions & key findings
Small owners need better and more information to help them implement an effective SEEMP.
SEEMP is widely seen as an opportunity to be exploited rather than a burden.
More respondents were ready for SEEMP legislation than not. Owners, operators and
charterers have clearly been putting in the time, research and preparatory work to ensure that they
will be compliant with IMO regulation.
Asian owners and operators were confident in their understanding of what SEEMP required of
them but are on the whole taking a much more considered and researched approach to what
they require from SEEMP.
There is a clear correlation between size and method of compliance. The fewer vessels
managed by a respondent company, the more likely they were to be implementing SEEMP on paper.
Electronic SEEMP is the majority choice for the largest companies.
Those choosing paper are doing so because it is easy, cheap or is the path of least resistance
but they are unlikely to be aware of the saving benefits possible through electronic SEEMP.
Increased efficiency improvements were identified along with the benefits to crew welfare as
reasons for choosing electronic SEEMP by those who weren’t using existing electronic systems.
A significant motivator was electronic solutions as a step towards paperless systems, as a
CSR benefit in its own right.

9. Many thanks to all who took part
NAPA Group
Tammasaarenkatu 3
FI-00180 Helsinki
Finland
Phone +358 9 22 813 1