Maritime law is a body of laws, conventions and treaties that governs international private business or other matters involving ships, shipping or crimes occurring on open water. Laws between nations governing such things as national versus international waters are considered public international law and are known as the Law of the Seas. 

In most developed nations, maritime law is governed by a separate code and is a separate jurisdiction from national laws. The United Nations, through the International Maritime Organization (IMO), has issued numerous conventions that can be enforced by the navies and coast guards of countries that have signed the treaty outlining these rules. Maritime law governs many of the insurance claims relating to ships and cargo, civil matters between shipowners, seamen and passengers, and piracy.

IMO Conventions

-The IMO was created in 1958 and is responsible for ensuring that existing international maritime conventions are kept up to date as well as develop new conventions as and when the need arises. Today, there are dozens of conventions regulating all aspects of maritime commerce and transport.

The IMO identifies three of these as its key conventions. They are:

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping for Seafarers

Enforcement

The governments of the of IMO’s 171 member States are responsible for the enforcement of IMO conventions for ships of their nationality. Local governments enforce the provisions of IMO conventions as far as their own ships are concerned and set the penalties for infringements. In some cases, ships must carry certificates on board the ship to show that they have been inspected and have met the required standards.

Nationality of ships

A ship’s nationality is determined by the country where it is registered. Most ships are registered in the national registry of the country where their owners reside or operate their business. However, often for reasons of tax planning or to take advantage of more lenient local rules, some owners will register ships in countries that allow foreign ships to be registered. These registries are called “flags of convenience.” Two common examples of flags of convenience are Panama and Bermuda.

UNCLOS 

UNCLOS is United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea. The convention is also sometimes referred to as the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty. UNCLOS, as a law of the sea came into operation and became effective from 16th November 1982.

However, the first time such a proposal was announced before the United Nations was in the year 1973. 

Over the course of nine years, with representations from over 160 countries coming forward, UNCLOS came into existence. The background of UNCLOS covers can be explained in detail as follows:

Starting with United States in the 1945, many countries across the world brought under their jurisdiction, the natural resources found in their oceans’ continental shelf. Some of the countries that exercised this power were Argentina, Canada, Indonesia, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and even countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia and Venezuela.

Source: telanganatoday

Fuel oil blends produced to meet the IMO 2020 sulphur limit, referred to as very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), have had a lot of bad press. Most of it has been based on alarmist predictions about the quality and other characteristics of these fuels, which have later proven to be unjustified or only partially accurate.

Earlier this year, IBIA addressed claims that the shift from high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) with up to 3.50% sulphur to VLSO blends meeting the new 0.50% sulphur limit for marine fuels would increase black carbon (BC) emissions. The claims, which proliferated in the press and on social media, were based on a study submitted to the IMO indicating that the new VLSFO blends could potentially be highly aromatic, and therefore increase black carbon (BC) emissions.

IBIA and others explained to an IMO meeting (PPR 7) in February 2020 that the fuel specimens used in the BC measurement study were not representative of most VLSFOs that were actually in the market. IBIA made a statement at PPR 7, and interventions by ISO and IMarEST are on record in an annex to the IMO’s report from PPR 7. VLSFOs delivered to ships have so far generally been more paraffinic and less aromatic than the HSFOs they have replaced.

Now, a new theory has been circulated in the press based on an article published on LinkedIn by Francisco Malta of VM Industrials, a distributor for additive maker Aderco. The article, originally* published with the headline “Why new VLSFO 0.5% Sulphur fuels emit higher Black Carbon Emissions” claimed that it isn’t a high aromatics content, but rather paraffinic hydrocarbons in VLSFO that are to blame for BC emissions.

IBIA finds claims made in the article questionable. Without getting into too much detail, let’s explain some of the issues.

First of all, the article gave the impression that the introduction of VLSFO has led to an increase in black carbon (BC) emissions.* However, the article did not present or reference any independently validated data from actual measurements of actual VLSFOs in use so far to support this observation.

It is important to note that the discussion at IMO in February was about a theoretical increase in BC emissions based on the BC measurement study, not an actual observed increase since ships began to use VLSFOs. The BC measurement study, which had been submitted to the IMO in November 2019, showed that an increase in aromatic content was associated with increased BC emissions. This was well understood by industry, which welcomed the study as an important contribution to build better knowledge about factors contributing to BC emissions. It was the assumption that VLSFOs would be more aromatic than the HSFOs they were replacing that was disputed.

Understanding all the factors behind black carbon emissions is a complex science and many people struggle to get a good understanding of it, including experts on chemistry and combustion processes. Formation of BC depends on multiple and variable factors and how they interact, including the engine type, engine load, engine condition, the makeup of the fuel and the pre-conditioning of the fuel prior to injection.

While the article claimed that an it was an increased level of paraffinic hydrocarbons in VLSFO that were causing an increase in BC emissions, we should not forget that a large portion of marine distillates are mainly paraffinic in nature. Yet there have not been any reports of an increase in BC emissions in emission control areas (ECAs), where most ships have been using marine gasoil to meet the 0.10% sulphur limit since 2015. We do note, however, that even clear and bright distillates can cause very visible black smoke when the engine is not in an optimum condition/and or setting.

The article stated that the asphaltenes in HFO 3.5% S “drop from suspension and end up as sludge in tanks” hence “they rarely ever make their way to combustion” whereas in the new VLSFO scenario, they “do make their way to the combustion chamber.” This isn’t what we have seen in practice. Conventional high sulphur fuel oils (HSFOs) are typically less prone to forming asphaltenic sludge prior to combustion than we have seen with VLSFOs so far. HSFO is typically more aromatic than VLSFO, and this helps keep the asphaltenes in suspension and stable. Hence, there would be more asphaltenes reaching the combustion chamber when using HSFO than VLSFOs. Also, VLSFOs typically contain less asphaltenes than HSFOs so it seems counterintuitive to suggest that more asphaltenes reach the combustion chamber when using VLSFO compared to HSFO.

Simply put, black carbon, or soot, is a result of incomplete combustion. From what we have heard, fuels with higher paraffinic content are associated with improved combustion compared to highly aromatic fuels. So far, we have not heard about VLSFOs being particularly prone to poor and/or incomplete combustion compared to HSFOs (which are typically more aromatic). Hence the claims in the article appear to run counter to real world experience.

We learnt from the discussions about VLSFO and BC emissions prior to the IMO meeting in February that misunderstandings can take hold when theories are taken as evidence of fact, when the reality may be quite different.

IBIA believes it is important to have proper data and empirical evidence to back up theories. When pointing to a certain fuel characteristic as the cause of an increase in BC emissions, it needs to be backed by independently validated data and specifics on the measurement methodology used to define black carbon.

VLSFO is currently the most widely adopted solution to meeting the 0.50% sulphur limit and for the most part it has performed better than predicted in the run-up to IMO 2020. As such, VLSFO blends have confounded much of the bad press. As VLSFOs are still quite new, we are still learning. We should, however, ensure that any conclusions drawn about the performance and environmental impact of VLSFOs are based on solid evidence.

Source: ibia

The international shipping industry will fail to tackle its global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions unless it puts in place rules that truly reflect the climate impact of shipping fuels, a new report finds.

The report, entitled “Exploring the relevance of ICAO’s Sustainable Aviation Fuels framework for the IMO”, has been released by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS).

As explained, the report is the first of its kind to explore whether the processes for delivering rules for sustainable marine fuels can be sped up using lessons learnt from aviation, a sector which is a natural comparison for the maritime industry and which is facing similar challenges in transitioning to sustainable alternative fuels.

Shipping is the lifeblood of the global economy. The international maritime sector transports roughly 90% of world trade and emits more CO2 than all but five countries. Without urgent climate action, these emissions are set to at least double by 2050. The world’s countries have committed within UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reducing GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and acknowledge that to meet this target the sector must make the switch from fossil fuels to alternative fuels to deliver on this ambition. Previous studies have shown that zero-emission vessels need to enter the fleet at scale from as early as 2030.

Specifically, the report considers how sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) or eligible fuels elements of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) market-based climate program, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), could be adopted in the context of shipping. The analysis shows that ICAO’s SAF framework offers “a solid blueprint” for the shipping sector.

What is more, the report identifies areas where the IMO should be more ambitious than ICAO to ensure that shipping transitions away from fossil fuels. The study warns the IMO not to create “perverse incentives” which could promote fuels that could worsen the climate crisis.

“Using the most appropriate science is key to making the right decisions for our environment. Shipping, as aviation, should ensure that all the emissions from a fuel – from the production to the distribution to the combustion itself – are accounted for if we are to understand the real climate impact,” Nishatabbas Rehmatulla, Senior Researcher, UCL and Principal Consultant, UMAS, commented.

“A meaningful policy must incentivise a fair, sustainable and non-perverse shift away from fossil and avoid the risk that emissions are simply shifted elsewhere. Getting this right is mission critical to the shipping industry’s decarbonisation pathway” Rehmatulla added.

“The International Maritime Organization and the shipping industry need to put in place the right rules for alternative fuels to truly drive the decarbonisation of the sector and it does not need to start from scratch. The rules recently adopted by ICAO offer valuable lessons and a good starting place for the IMO to chart its course toward a genuinely sustainable shipping sector” Aoife O’Leary, Director, Environmental Defense Fund, said.

In the absence of robust accounting rules, the climate benefit of alternative fuels can be completely undermined, UMAS and EDF said. Shipping must adopt a full lifecycle perspective, accounting for all greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, and ensure accurate calculations of both the direct and indirect impacts of emissions associated with the whole supply chain — extraction/production, transport/distribution and combustion — of the fuel.

It is a complex task, but ICAO has successfully done it for aviation and the IMO can use this work to jump-start its own progress, according to the report.

EDF and UMAS suggest that careful rules must be applied to ensure that the use of biofuels has a real climate benefit.

“Shipping must ensure that biofuels are not automatically granted a zero-emission status. The CORSIA framework sets out explicit rules for calculating emissions reductions for each biofuel pathway. It does not automatically allow all biofuels to claim zero carbon combustion emissions (as some other emissions accounting systems have done), as their lifecycle emissions can in some cases approach or even exceed those of petroleum fuels,” the duo pointed out in the report.

Authors from EDF and UMAS are also calling on the IMO to adopt strict rules on transparency to ensure that shipping companies accurately report their emissions, and don’t double count emission reductions.

They also want IMO to allocate adequate resources and draw on the experience and lessons learned from ICAO, where appropriate, to get these rules right.

Source: offshore-energy

MOST of the international fleet appears to have complied with regulations regarding fuel consumption data collection, according to the first effort to compile a global database.

The International Maritime Organization has seen more than 100 flag states submit the relevant data for 26,000 vessels, representing about 80% of ships that should have done so based on the Data Collection System regulation, a spokesperson told Lloyd’s List.

IMO member states or the relevant recognised organisations working on their behalf were required to submit verified fuel consumption data for 2019 by June 30.

Shipping companies are meant to have submitted their data to flag states or the recognised organisations for verification by March 31. Ships were obliged to have verified statements of compliance with the Data Collection System onboard by May 31.

This is the first time the IMO is collecting the fuel consumption data.

The Data Collection System covers ships that are 5,000 gross tonnes and above. The database is meant to help inform future decisions on fuel and emissions regulations by the IMO, which will publish the database.

The identities of vessels on the system will be kept confidential. The IMO secretariat plans to publish initial statistics from the system, the spokesperson said.

Panama, the world’s largest flag state, told IMO secretary general Kitack Lim in May that it was allowing a three-month extension to the deadline.

Lloyd’s List understands that other flag states have not issued extensions of the deadlines.

The IMO said it is not common practice to respond to circular letters like the one Panama’s delegation sent to Mr Lim.

“The secretariat cannot provide legally binding interpretations or grant extensions with regard to the provisions (regulations) in any of its conventions, including Marpol Annex VI, as this is the prerogative of the parties to the conventions and/or its annexes,” the spokesperson said.

Panama has uploaded fuel consumption data of several ships on its register and continues to do so, the spokesperson added.

Source: https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/

China’s new low-sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) futures contract made strong gains in its debut trade on Monday, rising as much as 16.7% on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE).

The front-month January contract, with a listing price of 2,368 yuan per tonne, later pared gains to close 9.8% higher at 2,599 yuan ($367.35) per tonne at the close of afternoon trade.

The contract saw open interest of 24,859 lots and trading volumes of 130,439 lots.

The launch of the contract with sulphur content lower than 0.5% comes after an International Maritime Organization (IMO) ruling which bans ships from using high sulphur content fuel oil this year unless equipped with exhaust scrubbers.

The contract could help boost China’s ambition to build a regional bunkering hub in its port of Zhoushan to vie for the multi-billion dollar ship fuel market dominated by Singapore.

Prices for LSFO futures jumped as the market felt its listing price, set by the Shanghai exchange, was undervalued and came below Zhoushan’s spot prices and Singapore’s 0.5% marine fuel prices, said Jin Xiao, chief analyst for energy and petrochemicals at Orient Futures research unit.

“Considering that the long-term curve of Singapore’s low-sulphur is in a contango structure, we think it is more reasonable for LSFO prices to have a premium to Zhoushan spot prices,” he said.

Contango is a situation where the futures price of a commodity is higher than the spot price.

Open to international investors, the LSFO contract is China’s fifth internationalized one following the opening up of crude oil, TSR 20 rubber, iron ore and purified terephthalic acid futures to foreign participants.

“LSFO prices will see limited declines mainly due to the fact that the most serious impact of the coronavirus epidemic on the economy has ended, demand will gradually recover,” Jin added.

A Shanghai-based trader who traded the contract said whether or not LSFO’s prices could sustain would depend on the demand and supply of the marine fuel.

“In the short term, it will depend on crude oil, which is expected to trend slightly higher.”

($1 = 7.0750 Chinese yuan renminbi)

(Reporting by Muyu Xu in Beijing and Emily Chow; Editing by Tom Hogue and Amy Caren Daniel)

A significant step has been made to protect seafarers’ health and safety amid the COVID-19 pandemic, with IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim’s endorsement of a series of recommendations designed to ensure seafarers can access medical care ashore quickly and safely.

Receiving medical care ashore can be a matter of life or death for seafarers who fall ill while working on ships. But since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been cases of seafarers being denied permission to go ashore, even when they presented medical issues that were life-threatening but not related to COVID-19, including a stroke (read more here).

The Recommendations for port and coastal States on the prompt disembarkation of seafarers for medical care ashore during the COVID-19 pandemic (download here) seek to address this issue. Developed by a broad cross section of global industry associations in consultative status with IMO, they provide guidance to the relevant authorities in port and coastal States so they can ensure seafarers’ access to medical care. This covers any medical situation but also when a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 is involved.

The recommendations include advice on monitoring for signs or symptoms of COVID-19 prior to disembarkation, isolation of suspected or confirmed cases, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and minimizing the exposure to infrastructures and personnel in the port during disembarkation and transfer to a medical facility.

IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim urged Member States to implement the recommendations and share them with the relevant authorities.

“Seafarers are at the heart of everything IMO does. In the darkest hours of the pandemic, they have been selflessly delivering the goods we all need. But their own health and wellbeing are as important as that of anyone else. Now is time for governments around the world to deliver for seafarers, by ensuring they can access medical care without delay, whenever they need it”, Mr. Lim said.

Under the International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), port States must ensure that seafarers on board ships in their territory who are in need of immediate medical care are given access to medical facilities on shore. The obligation to render assistance to seafarers in distress, including medical assistance, is also enshrined in the IMO Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR), Salvage and Facilitation conventions, as well as in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Prompt and efficient disembarkation of seafarers to receive medical care ashore is essential not only for the seafarers’ health, but also for the maintenance of the global supply chain. Due to COVID-related restrictions, ships have faced difficulties arranging for such disembarkation, causing delays or disruptions to their operations and potential danger to the seafarers themselves.

The Recommendations for port and coastal States on the prompt disembarkation of seafarers for medical care ashore during the COVID-19 pandemic were developed by ICS, IAPH, BIMCO, IFSMA, INTERTANKO, P&I Clubs, CLIA, INTERCARGO, InterManager, IPTA, IMCA, INTERFERRY, FONASBA, ITF and WSC.

Read more: WISTA International Signs MOU With The International Maritime Organisation, IMO

Since May, IMO has been urging its Member States to implement the Recommended framework of protocols for ensuring safe ship crew changes and travel during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, which were also drawn up by industry associations. These protocols specifically ask governments to designate seafarers as key workers and to do everything possible to allow crew changes to happen. Implementing these protocols remains vital, as hundreds of thousands of seafarers remain stranded on ships, having worked for several months beyond their original contracts, or, conversely, stuck onshore, unable to join ships and work.
Source: IMO

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund and University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS) has argued that the International Maritime Organization should follow the lead taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in promoting the move to sustainable fuels and accounting for emissions.

Specifically, the report looks at how elements of the ICAO’s market-based climate programme, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), could be adopted in the context of shipping.  According to Environmental Defense Fund, ICAO’s sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) framework offers a ‘solid blueprint for the shipping sector’ – but the report also identifies areas where the IMO ‘should be more ambitious than ICAO to ensure that shipping transitions away from fossil fuels’.

Aoife O’Leary, Director with the Environmental Defense Fund, commented: ‘The International Maritime Organization and the shipping industry need to put in place the right rules for alternative fuels to truly drive the decarbonisation of the sector and it does not need to start from scratch. The rules recently adopted by ICAO offer valuable lessons and a good starting place for the IMO to chart its course toward a genuinely sustainable shipping sector.’

The report’s key recommendations include:

• Shipping must adopt a full lifecycle perspective, accounting for all greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, and ensure accurate calculations of both the direct and indirect impacts of emissions associated with the whole supply chain (extraction/production, transport/distribution and combustion) of the fuel.

Environmental Defense Fund said that this would be a ‘complex task’, but maintained that ‘ICAO has successfully done it for aviation and the IMO can use this work to jump-start its own progress’.

• Careful rules must be applied to ensure that the use of biofuels has a real climate benefit. Shipping must ensure that biofuels are not automatically granted a zero-emission status.

Environmental Defense Fund said this was necessary as not all ‘biofuels’ are equally green.

‘The CORSIA framework sets out explicit rules for calculating emissions reductions for each biofuel pathway,’ explained Environmental Defense Fund. ‘It does not automatically allow all biofuels to claim zero carbon combustion emissions (as some other emissions accounting systems have done), as their lifecycle emissions can in some cases approach or even exceed those of petroleum fuels.

‘The report warns the IMO not to create perverse incentives which could promote fuels that could worsen the climate crisis.’

Dr Nishatabbas Rehmatulla, Senior Researcher, UCL and Principal Consultant, UMAS, commented: ‘Using the most appropriate science is key to making the right decisions for our environment. Shipping, as aviation, should ensure that all the emissions from a fuel – from the production to the distribution to the combustion itself – are accounted for if we are to understand the real climate impact. A meaningful policy must incentivise a fair, sustainable and non-perverse shift away from fossil and avoid the risk that emissions are simply shifted elsewhere. Getting this right is mission critical to the shipping industry’s decarbonisation pathway.’

The  report also call on the IMO to:

• Adopt strict rules on transparency to ensure that shipping companies accurately report their emissions, and don’t double count emission reductions.
• Allocate adequate resources and draw on the experience and lessons learned from ICAO, where appropriate, to get these rules right.

A full copy of the report can be download here.

The Environmental Defense Fund will be contributing an article about this report in the forthcoming August/September issue of the Bunkerspot magazine. 

Source: bunkerspot

Recently the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the shipping agency of the United Nations, issued new rules aiming to reduce sulphur emissions, due to which ships are opting for newer blends of fuels.

What are the new rules of IMO?

• It has banned ships from using fuels with a sulphur content above 0.5 per cent, compared with 3.5 per cent previously. Because sulphur oxides (SOx), which are formed after combustion in engines, are known to cause respiratory symptoms and lung disease, while also leading to acid rain.
• The new limits are monitored and enforced by national authorities of countries that are members of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI.
• As per the new policy, only ships fitted with sulphur-cleaning devices, known as scrubbers, are allowed to continue burning high-sulphur fuel.
• Alternatively, they can opt for cleaner fuels, such as marine gas oil (MGO) and very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO).

Impact of the move

The new regulations, called IMO 2020, have been regarded as the biggest shake-up for the oil and shipping industries in decades. It affects more than 50,000 merchant ships worldwide.

A brief note on The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

• MARPOL is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes.
• The MARPOL Convention was adopted on 2 November 1973 at IMO.
• The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships – both accidental pollution and that from routine operations – and currently includes six technical Annexes. Special Areas with strict controls on operational discharges are included in most Annexes.
• Annex VI of the Convention: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (entered into force 19 May 2005)
  • It sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances; designated emission control areas set more stringent standards for SOx, NOx and particulate matter.
  • A chapter adopted in 2011 covers mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships.Source: manifestias

Not for the first time in recent weeks shipping has been urged to take a leaf out of the aviation playbook in terms of how it tackles its carbon footprint.

The report considers how sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) or eligible fuels elements of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) market-based climate program, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), could be adopted in the context of shipping. The analysis shows that ICAO’s SAF framework offers a solid blueprint for the shipping sector. The report also identifies areas where the IMO should be more ambitious than ICAO to ensure that shipping transitions away from fossil fuels.

“The International Maritime Organization and the shipping industry need to put in place the right rules for alternative fuels to truly drive the decarbonisation of the sector and it does not need to start from scratch. The rules recently adopted by ICAO offer valuable lessons and a good starting place for the IMO to chart its course toward a genuinely sustainable shipping sector,” said Aoife O’Leary, director with the Environmental Defense Fund.

In the absence of robust accounting rules, the climate benefit of alternative fuels can be completely undermined, the report warns. Shipping must adopt a full lifecycle perspective, accounting for all greenhouse gas emissions, including methane – a likely swipe at LNG, and ensure accurate calculations of both the direct and indirect impacts of emissions associated with the whole supply chain (extraction/production, transport/distribution and combustion) of the fuel.

The study calls for the application of careful rules to ensure that the use of biofuels has a real climate benefit.

“Shipping must ensure that biofuels are not automatically granted a zero-emission status,” the report states.

The CORSIA framework in aviation sets out explicit rules for calculating emissions reductions for each biofuel pathway. It does not automatically allow all biofuels to claim zero carbon combustion emissions as some other emissions accounting systems have done, as their lifecycle emissions can in some cases approach or even exceed those of petroleum fuels.

The report warns the IMO not to create perverse incentives which could promote fuels that could worsen the climate crisis.

“Using the most appropriate science is key to making the right decisions for our environment. Shipping, as aviation, should ensure that all the emissions from a fuel – from the production to the distribution to the combustion itself – are accounted for if we are to understand the real climate impact. A meaningful policy must incentivise a fair, sustainable and non-perverse shift away from fossil and avoid the risk that emissions are simply shifted elsewhere. Getting this right is mission critical to the shipping industry’s decarbonisation pathway,” said Dr Nishatabbas Rehmatulla, senior researcher at UCL and principal consultant for UMAS.

The authors also call on the IMO to adopt strict rules on transparency to ensure that shipping companies accurately report their emissions, and don’t double count emission reductions.

The topic of aviation and maritime joining forces to develop new clean fuels was brought up during Capital Link’s digital forum last month by Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen, the CEO of DNV GL Maritime.

Esben Poulsson, chairman of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), commented that shipping had had close dialogue with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) during the crew change crisis.

“I found them very, very responsive and quick to come back to us,” Poulsson said, adding: “I think in the future there could be some cooperation and collaboration with the airline industry.”

Splash also reported last month how a front-runner for the next generation of green fuel for the aviation industry could be used for ships.

Oslo-headquartered Norsk e-Fuel is a newly-established industry consortium building Europe’s first commercial plant for hydrogen-based renewable aviation fuel.

The group comprises German power-to-liquid specialist Sunfire, Zurich-based carbon capture expert Climeworks, engineering, procurement and construction company Paul Wurth and green investor Valinor, which owns Norway’s largest private wind power developer Norsk Vind.

Norsk e-Fuel will make use of Sunfire and Climeworks’ technologies to build plants that will convert into syngas renewable electricity, water and carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from ambient air and unavoidable CO2 sources. This syngas will be used for the production of renewable fuels through further processing and refining.

The first such facility is planned to open at the Heroya Industry Park in Porsgrunn by 2023 with an initial capacity to produce 10m litres of renewable fuel per year. There are plans to expand it to 100m litres annually by 2026.