Practical Playbook

for Maritime
Decarbonisation
– Value chain-based pathways towards zero-emission shipping

Nordic West Office Oy

Sörnäisten Rantatie 15, 00530 Helsinki
Tel: +358 9 6818 700
www.nordicwestoffice.com

© 2022 Nordic West Office, Wolfgang Lehmacher and Mikael Lind. All rights reserved.
Executive summary
How to speed up the transition to a more sustainable The reference points to measure the outcome of each
and more profitable maritime ecosystem? How to ac- of the three scenarios are the IMO 2018 ambitions
celerate the decarbonisation of shipping? Answering and the Paris climate goals. The International Mari-
these two questions brought together a diverse group time Organization (IMO) has challenged the shipping
of contributors from different parts of the maritime in- industry to cut annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
dustry and the global decarbonisation ecosystem. sions by at least half by 2050, compared to 2008. The
The participants included representatives from 13 2015 Paris Agreement commits countries to limit the
companies, five international organisations and one global average temperature rise to well below 2°C
academic institution. We have been motivated by a above pre-industrial levels, and to aim for 1.5°C.
strong commitment to work together for a better future
for the oceans and the globe.
The different scenarios produce dif-
Initially, we developed three scenarios that describe ferent results. The worst outcomes
three plausible future worlds. Then, we developed are produced by a scenario labelled
pathways and recommendations on how to reach the Storms. This is a world of nationalism,
best possible scenario from a decarbonisation per- Storms geopolitical conflicts, and a worsening
spective. We set ourselves two timeframes. First, we climate crisis. In this scenario the Paris
looked at what could happen to climate change in climate goals, and the IMO 2018 decarbonisation am-
each of the three scenarios during this century. Sec- bitions are both missed.
ond, we analysed what needs to happen in the mari-
time industry during this decade to produce the best
possible outcome. The moderately good scenario is called
Swells. Swells is a nautical term that re-
fers to the slow up and down movement
of the sea with large but smooth waves.
Swells In the beginning, businesses and
governments concentrate on growth.
Everything looks good for a while. Decarbonisation is
advancing slowly. Then the climate crisis intensifies
increasingly disrupting shipping services and ports.
Quick, abrupt changes are needed and finally initiat-
ed. But these are costly and cause significant disrup-
tions. Yet, late but accelerated decarbonisation is not
enough to reach the IMO 2018 ambitions but eventu-
ally the Paris goals are met.

The best outcomes from a decarboni-

sation perspective produces a scenario
named Clear Sky. Politicians, business
leaders, citizens, and investors world-
Clear wide are aligning to reach the Paris
Illustration: Sandra Haraldson Sky climate goals and IMO 2018 ambitions.

2
The private sector takes initiative individually and col- Recommendation #2: The maritime
lectively, and policymakers are supporting the efforts industry to urge IMO member states’
with policies and regulatory frameworks and through governments to supportl the proposed
promoting sustainable business and innovation. In “zero by 2050” planli and follow through
this scenario, the Paris goals are met but the IMO the current roadmaps with detailed
2018 ambitions are still missed. Consequently, even targets
in the fastest moving decarbonisation scenario con-
sidered, the current state-of-play of enablers, and the
progress anticipated, indicates that a move onto the Underlying finding: All developed scenario path-
front foot now is not only a non-regret strategy but ways show that we don’t get anywhere near the 2018
IMO decarbonisation ambitions, and yet indicate the
an indispensable step. This is the only way for the
potential competitive and commercial advantages
maritime industry to ensure that the maritime industry from acceleration
aligns with the Paris agreement and exceeds the IMO
2018 ambitions.
Conclusion: We need a stronger ambition and more
The participants in the study generally believe that aggressive pathway based on accurate GHG calcu-
we are living and operating in a Swells environment lation and monitoring
with increasing tendencies towards Storms. But the
group sees also a pathway towards Clear Sky. An in-
Recommendation #3: Establish cross-
itial bundle of actions is summarised in the following
value chain coordination, e.g., through
seven recommendations for public and private sector
stakeholders to act upon. partnerships and zero-emission corridors
/ networks

Recommendation #1: Build scenarios

Underlying finding: We face bottlenecks and gaps in
to stress-test current decarbonisation
decarbonisation across interdependent value chains,
strategies per value chain and across e.g., we have dual-fuel engines but not enough alter-
clusters native fuel

Underlying finding: Scenario thinking, and their Conclusion: We need a holistic approach to decar-
sharing, helps to manage risks for example to avoid bonisation and a cluster view on value chains of fuel,
stranded assets and develop understanding across shipbuilding, and operations
the cluster of maritime value chains of different path-
ways to the future and to outline their implications for
decarbonisation

Conclusion: We can leverage the strategic context

which the different scenarios provide

3
 Recommendation #4: Every actor and Recommendation #6: Establish
sector in the industry needs to identify sufficient, transparent, and predictable
and focus on its relevant enablers financing and pricing mechanisms, like
across their respective value chains to a levy on high carbon marine fuels and
achieve company, industry, and country subsidies for low carbon solutions
milestones

Underlying finding: Making decarbonisation in the

Underlying finding: There is no single silver bullet, maritime industry work requires pathways that are
however this is not a curse but a cure in our diverse financially incentivised and viable across all chains
world in different stages of development
Conclusion: We need to find ways to trigger and
Conclusion: We need to remain flexible and develop finance the change
the “37 enablers” for different cases and sustainable
profitability
Recommendation #7: Act now! In
our self-interest to avoid exponential
Recommendation #5: Create a global decarbonization costs
public-private coalition of the willing
to identify / activate scalable enablers Underlying finding: Many decarbonisation enablers
across all chains are ready to use, and decarbonising shipping is a
complex and costly task that will become more costly
Underlying finding: Given all circumstances regula- if further action is delayed
tors are ill-prepared to decide or guide the maritime
sector in respect to what enablers to activate along Conclusion: We can already activate a range of de-
and across the chains carbonisation enablers across the maritime value
chains and accelerate developments that are in the
Conclusion: Leading players in the industry need to broader self-interest of all stakeholders
take initiative and show what works and what doesn’t
so that other public and private actors are better in-
formed for their own decisions; but what works for one
may not work for others

This report is to be found at nordicwestoffice.com/maritime

4
Foreword
How to achieve the transition to The context has changed dramatically since our work began.
a sustainable and profitable maritime When we started, the world was emerging from a long pandem-
economy? The answer to this highly ic. When we finished, the unprovoked attack on Ukraine had been
relevant question is at the centre of ongoing for three months. This dramatic turn of events has spot-
this report. lighted even more clearly the need to review our expected fu-
tures and the value of scenario thinking. The scenarios applied
in this project are based on Shell Energy Transformation Sce-
narios which were expanded fully into the maritime context. The
resulting maritime transition scenarios were the foundations from
where a framework, key takeaways, recommendations, and a call
to action were derived.

The transition to a sustainable and profitable future of shipping

will be brought about by a focus on interrelated clusters of iden-
tified value chains, a collective approach with all stakeholders
living up to their roles and responsibilities, and continuous ex-
change and learning. In our fragmented world, diversity of drivers
is not a curse but a potential cure, and flexibility is a prerequisite
for effective operations.

This report aims at assisting the members of the maritime indus-

try, including public sector representatives, to align and focus
their resources and efforts on the main drivers of decarbonisation
through a common framework and a shared nomenclature.

M13 I extend my appreciation to the two authors, the five lead experts,
the 19 companies and organisations, the four reviewers, and the
8
6
4
2
M12
45 individual contributors listed in appendix 10 that were involved
8
6 throughout this process for their outstanding contributions to this
report.
4
2
M11
8
6
4
2
This project is a fine example of what a “coalition of the willing”
can achieve. We hope that our message to the maritime business
M10
8

community, the energy industry, regulators, and policymakers will

6
4
2
M9
8
be heard and translates into an acceleration of decarbonisation
6
4 efforts of the shipping industry.
2
M8

Risto E J Penttilä
8
6
4
2
M7 Nordic West Office
June 2022
8
6
4
2
M6
8
6
4
2

5
Setting the scene
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has With this complex context,
challenged the shipping industry to cut annual green- decarbonisation in shipping needs
house gas (GHG) emissions by at least half by 2050, extensive knowledge-building
compared to 2008. These ambitions is currently under
review as net zero by 2050 is under discussion. The This study, initiated and orchestrated by the Nordic
challenge is enormous and inter-disciplinary. The In- West Office in Finland, brought together a diverse
ternational Chamber of Shipping points outi that,” the group of contributors from different parts of the mar-
world’s renewable energy generation would need to itime industry and the global decarbonisation eco-
increase up to 100% just to supply enough (net) zero system to identify pathways towards a zero-emission
carbon fuel to power the shipping industry”. The inter- shipping sector, bringing to light the most practical
national organisation also states that decarbonising approaches and solutions that contribute to reaching
shipping will create significant opportunities. Given the IMO ambitions and a zero-emission shipping fu-
the harmful effects of global warming, the shipping in- ture. While a full concensus on every exact detail of
dustry needs in its own interest as ports and ships are the report has not been reached, all participating or-
facing increasing risks e.g., due to rising sea levels ganisations and experts appreciate the initiative and
and natural disasters to act urgently, collaboratively, support the recommendations, and the call to action.
and comprehensively across multiple dimensions to
put the shipping industry on a path to zero emissions. Although this work is not an academic exercise, it fol-
lows a clear process to analyse, structure, and com-
plement the contributions of the members of the mixed
This need for critical and rapid action is group of experts (Appendix 10). The process has re-
acknowledged by many of the industry’s major sulted in outcomes that include an analytical frame-
stakeholders.ii work, an analysis of the findings with conclusions,
and a set of concrete recommendations with a call to
action to inform, assist and guide decision-makers in
The business model, meaning the operator / charter- the public and private sector. Derived from the study
er determines how a ship is built and used during its work, this report includes also a practical playbook
lifetime. Ships are operating locally, like in inland wa- helping actors in the public and private sector to plan
terway shipping; regionally, like in shortsea shipping; and drive their decarbonisation efforts.
and globally in deep-sea shipping. Liner services, like
deep-sea container shipping, use ships on regular The study confirmed the complexity of the topic. The
routes visiting a limited number of ports in their port maritime industry may draw on past experiences like
rotation; tramp ships sail where they are in demand the slow LNG built-up which was mainly led from the
visiting a broader variety of ports across the globe; the outside by the energy sector which took more than
same is true for cruise ships which call at many and a decade to achieve a relatively small share in the
often smaller ports to bring passengers to any touristic mix and the Sulphur 2020 requirements which after
paradise accessible by sea. Ships are used by different triggering a lot of discussion in the maritime industry
customers with different types of merchandise result- were met almost overnight.
ing in demand for dry bulk ships and wet bulk ships like
very large crude carriers (VLCC). 43% of the maritime
shipping is occupied with transporting energy across Each maritime business model drives different
the worldiii. Some ships stay for decades with the same approaches and decisions on energy needs
owner; others change hands after a few years which and decarbonisation based on factors that need
does not promote a long-term perspective. to be deeply understood.

6
Navigating uncertainty: Starting later than required to meet the goal of the
Three maritime transition scenarios Paris Agreement, Waves achieves an energy system
The mindsets of decisionmakers are reflected in their with net-zero emissions eventually – late but acceler-
visions of the future. Such perspectives can be ex- ated decarbonisation. The Islands world overshoots
plored with the help of scenario thinking. Therefore, the timeline and does not achieve the goal of the Par-
three Shell Energy Transformation Scenarios have is agreement – late, slow and costly decarbonisation
been used to kick off, frame, and inform the discus- leading to adaptation. In Sky 1.5 leading economies
sions during the study work. Those scenarios were achieve the goal of net-zero by 2050, supporting less
chosen as the point of departure as they explore developed nations. The goal of the Paris Accord is
boundaries for how the world might develop in the met – accelerated decarbonisation now.
next decades providing the grounds for decision-mak-
ing in the public and private sector. They consider Although this may only be a snapshot based on cur-
the impact of different balances of socio-political pri- rent sentiment, the group of experts generally thinks
orities in the coming years as societies recover from that we are living in a Waves environment with in-
recent and ongoing crises. All societies seek wealth, creasing tendencies towards Islands. This shows that
security, and health / well-being, but specific circum- our priorities are mixed but gravitate towards one or
stances and political choices may lead to one factor two poles. Today we gravitate strongly towards Waves
being particularly emphasised. This leads to different because of a reality in which financial capital is per-
possible pathways for industrial development, energy ceived as a dominant factor in securing resilience.
transitions and decarbonisation of the global econo- But we also move towards a stronger Island future
my and individual sectors. because of the current (homeland, food, energy etc.)
security concerns influenced among other factors by
Concretely, the names of the three Shell scenarios the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine
are Waves with wealth prioritised first, Islands with war. Although this mixed reality may persist, the ex-
security first, and Sky 1.5 with health / well-being first. perts wish that we eventually transition towards the
The primary interests indicate where decarbonisation behaviours explored in Sky 1.5 where lessons are
is placed on the agenda. Only in Sky 1.5 is the de- learned from, e.g.:
carbonisation effort a top priority, with its focus on
well-being, learning from experience and from others, 1. the successful combination of competitive and
and reforming institutions whose weaknesses have collaborative dynamics that drove accelerated
been exposed through recent crises. In Islands, with vaccine development and spread of good
its focus on autonomy and self-sufficiency, decarbon- medical practices in the face of the Covid-19
isation mainly happens when it fits into the local pa- pandemic,
rameters, e.g., the local energy supply. In Waves, with
its initial focus on (easy) short-term economic growth, 2. the effectiveness in job creation of the invest-
decarbonisation initially happens only when financial- ments in green technology deployment in
ly viable in the short-term without targeted policy sup- responding to the 2008/9 global financial crisis,
port or effective alignments between stakeholders to
open new opportunities. Subsequent backlashes in 3. the domestic industrial advantages surfaced in
Waves, however, occur later when extreme weather the past by green technology development and
events are blamed on previous lack of action, leading deployment (e.g., in solar photovoltaic and
to knee-jerk regulation driving rapid but disruptive de- electric vehicles) and the commercial competi-
carbonisation (Appendix 2). tive races this initiated

7
Decarbonizing shipping: The three potential futures developed by Shell were
Maritime Transition Scenarios expanded into the maritime transition scenarios:
Swells with economic recovery first, Storms with lo-
• Uncertainty about key cal / regional interests first, and Clear Sky with global
decarbonisation technologies, but maritime decarbonisation first – driven by competitive
pioneer private and public actors interests and alignments (figure 1).
undertake strategic moves
Swells Swells is the continuation of the fossil-fuel powered
• Starting point for less prosperous maritime sector until pressures have built up to such
stakeholders to adopt greener an extent that there is no other option left but to force
approaches when obliged following the undertaking of everything thinkable and doable to
a build up of pressures at extensive decarbonise shipping. Storms suffers from reduced
costs starting early/mid 2030s global knowledge exchange and coordination due to
its focus on local / regional solutions which may ben-
efit inland waterway shipping, shortsea shipping and
• Sluggish global trade outlook and ferry services but not deep-sea shipping. In this sce-
focus on domestic economies nario, progress in deep-sea operations is therefore
adding friction to accessing capital the result of initiatives launched by pioneering players
for investment in new and greener and partnerships transcending the silos. Only Clear
Storms technologies and practices Sky brings global exchange, widespread alignments
and collaboration that drives steady decarbonisation
• Heterogenous landscape in of the maritime industry across the globe over all
regulation and a drift away from sub-segments and types of business models.
IMO legislation
Different futures (scenarios) result in different path-
ways of decarbonisation in terms of intensity and
• Increasingly powerful maritime timing. Mapping those scenarios helps us to make
decarbonisation coalitions driving better decisions through forcing the consideration of
steady reductions in carbon the robustness and attractiveness of actions across
emissions different circumstances. We cannot know in advance
Clear in detail which type of scenario will unfold and we
Sky • Developments emerge across all need to recognise this inescapable uncertainty, but
areas of the maritime industry, with the scenarios can help guide us towards decisions
improved alignment between sea most likely to be robust and attractive.
and land connections

Figure 1: Maritime Transition scenarios derived

from the general (Shell) scenario narratives

8
 Shipping-Freight CO2Co
Shipping-Freight Emissions
2
Emissions
1.0 IMO stretched ambition

0.9 IMO target

EU
0.8
IEA-NZE
0.7
0.6
CO2 (bln tonne)

Islands
0.5
Waves
0.4
Sky1.5
0.3
0.2
0.1 INDICATIVE
0.0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year

Figure 2: Progression forecasts of Shipping-Freight carbon dioxide emissions

(Source: Shell Energy Transformation Scenarios 2021, IEA, IMO and compiled by Wim Thomas)

area of focus goes even beyond the maritime-specific

The projections prepared based on the three clusters.
maritime transition scenarios show that
decarbonisation efforts in the maritime sector A key enabler for ensuring that the different value
need to be accelerated as none of the resulting chains in the cluster move in the same direction, and
pathways brings us close to the IMO 2018 quickly, is a predictable multilateral framework. Inves-
ambitions (figure 2). tors in all clusters need to be given as much clarity
as possible about the emissions targets (will IMO aim
at zero, or net zero, by 2050, or later?), carbon pric-
es (market-based mechanisms (MBMs) need to be
Scoping out the decarbonisation space:
agreed upon as soon as possible), and technical and
The cluster of critical maritime value
operational requirements (efficiency targets, speed
chains limits, et al).
It is essential to consider the complete cluster of val-
ue chains that are critical for decarbonising the mari- The cluster of maritime value chains overlaps with
time sector, namely the marine fuel value chain, the clusters of suppliers, e.g., of steel and equipment
shipbuilding value chain, and the maritime opera- needed for shipbuilding, clusters of beneficial cargo
tional value chain. owners (BCOs) from many industries, and clusters of
other sectors’ decarbonisation efforts across the econ-
This cluster of critical maritime value chains needs to omy that compete with shipping for scarce resources
be approached holistically and simultaneously from a of green power and alternative fuels, like aviation that
carbon calculation, design, planning, financing, man- uses sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). But there are also
agement, and policymaking perspective. The entire synergies. Other modes of transports such as trucking
cluster of chains needs to be decarbonised chain by can benefit for example from port storage and fuelling
chain and sector by sector, ideally in parallel to avoid capabilities to cover their own needs. Low-carbon and
gaps and bottlenecks. The discussions for this project zero-emissions fuels or green / clean / alternative fuels
have shown that it is often the gaps across the chains are defined as fuels that are produced, transported,
that discourage stronger commitments for decarbon- distributed, and used with zero / low GHG emissions,
isation. The most important current bottleneck is the like green LNG / LBG, biodiesel, green methanol,
lack of alternative fuels (see below), but the required green ammonia, and green hydrogen.

9
The good news is that we build and operate ships with In addition, the impact of other difficult-to-abate indus-
dual-fuel engines (for fossil and alternative fuels, like tries and the levy on steel will shape the price of alter-
green methanol) but instead of running them on alter- native fuel and low-carbon ships respectively and must
native fuels we mainly burn IMO 2020 compliant very be accounted for. This calls for a cross-value chain ap-
low sulphur fuel oil (0.5% VLSFO) or high sulphur proach that requires broader understanding, communi-
fuel oil (3.5% HSFO) when the ship is equipped with cation, and coordination of activities. While challenging,
a scrubber or exhaust gas cleaning system, because this will create opportunities, like new combined offers
low-carbon and zero-emissions fuels (green fuels, and new jobs resulting from the competencies and ca-
clean fuels or alternative fuels) are hardly available pabilities needed. This also requires new training provid-
today or are not cost competitive. ers and new partnerships across the clusters.

The high-level strategies for the three maritime val- Instead of providing only part-solutions to cover the
ue chains derived from this snapshot of today’s maritime cluster needs, new consortia may emerge
state of decarbonisation in shipping are (figure 3): that offer complete turnkey solutions. These could en-
compass, for example, an entire shipping corridor /
1. ramp-up the alternative (low-carbon and network including alternative fuel production facilities,
zero-emissions) fuel value chain, fuel storage and bunkering infrastructure in seaports
or floating on water, ships equipped with alternative
2. accelerate the low-carbon shipbuilding value and upgradeable dual-fuel engines, and CO2 reducing
chain, and hull design. Such new offerings can not only acceler-
ate decarbonisation due to will aligned value chains
3. adopt low-carbon and zero-emissions fuels, but also create lower prices and higher margins as the
green ships, and other carbon dioxide (CO2) basis for new competitive advantages.
emissions reducing measures in the maritime
operational value chain.
Decarbonising shipping means decarbonising
Shippers and regulators are indispensable for the im- value chains which represents a major cross-
plementation of such strategies. ecosystem challenge but with the effort also
come opportunities in form of new growth, new
jobs, and a healthier life.

High level strategy per critical maritime value chain

Marine Fuel Value Chain

(from well to bunker) Ramp-up

Shipbuilding Value Chain

Accelerate
(from built to reuse)

Maritime Operational Value Chain

Adopt
(from port to port (fuel and ships in use))

Figure 3: High level strategy per critical maritime value chain

10
Decarbonisation options: duction technology is needed to produce clean
Enablers anchored and assessed marine fuels, advanced ship engine technology
Decarbonisation will be driven by enablers. 37 de- is required to make use of these fuels, and digi-
carbonisation enablers were identified in this study tal technology supports fuel-efficient operations
and grouped in different categories, namely multi-fu- that drive costs and fuel consumption down to
els, regulations, financing, multi-fuel power systems, reduce the need for scarce renewable energy.
circularity, port measures, green power-to-X technol- A special type of cross-cutting decarbonisation
ogies, ship optimisation, and operations controls. enabler is policies and programmes which set
boundaries for the direction of value chain clus-
The decarbonisation enablers are sitting across the ter development and incentives for the speed of
cluster of maritime value chains. Each enabler may decarbonisation.
be driving decarbonisation in one, two or all the three
maritime value chains (figure 4). 2. Circularity is an enabler that cuts across two val-
ue chains: first, the shipbuilding value chain as
1. One key enabler that cuts across all three ships need to be built from recycled material and
maritime value chains is alternative fuel. Many be themselves again recyclable, and second,
alternative fuels still need to prove their long- the operational value chain as it requires main-
term cost competitiveness. But, “wrong picks” tenance and repair following circular principles.
may be unavoidable at this stage. As an output Alternative bunker marketplaces sit between
of the marine fuel value chain, alternative fuels the marine fuel value chain and the operational
determine ship design, engines, tanks, storage, value chain.
bunkering, and ship operations. Another trans-
versal enabler is technology: alternative fuel pro- 3. Finally, enablers that support the decarbonisa-
tion in only one single chain are, for example,
hydrodynamics and low carbon emission hull
design in shipbuilding, green power-to-X tech-
nologies in the marine fuel value chain, and
advanced weather routing in the opera-
Multi-Fuel
tional value chain.
Power
Marine Fuel Systems Shipbuilding
Value Chain Value Chain
Green power-to-X Ship Optimization
technologies Multi-fuels
Other power sources
Regulations
Financing
Port
Circularity
Measures

Maritime Operational
Value Chain Figure 4: Examples of
Operations Controls enablers related to the three
interdependent value chains

11
 Many enablers are already mature or close to maturity. Based on this detailed analysis of the 37 enablers we
Others still need additional research and development can identify those that are useable at scale or usable
(R&D) as well as pilot projects that prove what works within limits now and in 2030 in each of the three mar-
and what doesn’t. While impact on GHG reduction, ease itime transition scenarios (appendix 8). This estab-
of implementation, and acceptance across stakeholder lishes a deeper understanding of the decarbonisation
are relatively stable criteria, readiness, adoption, and outcomes per scenario (figure 6). This report calls out
financial viability of the decarbonisation enablers vary five main observations.
from scenario to scenario and sector to sector.
1. The enabler analysis shows that actors in the
The 37 enablers were assessed using six criteria (fig- maritime industry can already today leverage a
ure 5). This is an approximative analysis using scores range of solutions to drive decarbonisation; with
to provide indications of the merits and the stage of some enablers having more and others less im-
development of the identified enablers dependent on pact on GHG reduction. The frontrunners in the
a given scenario. Three factors the enablers were industry have already activated many of these
scored on are of a more general nature: impact, ease decarbonisation enablers.
of execution, and stakeholder acceptance (Appendix
4 and 5). The three other criteria are dynamic: read- 2. An open and collaborative world in Swells and
iness, availability, and financial viability. In line with Clear Sky is more favourable to decarbonisation
the horizon in scope of this study the dynamic crite- efforts than a siloed one with tensions between
ria considered are: now and 2030 in each of Swells, the blocs. Speedy and impactful decarbonisation
Storms, and Clear Sky (Appendix 6 and 7). requires globalisation, more precisely joint effort.

3. A fragmented Storms-like global landscape will

not bring about a lot of clean developments by
the end of the decade but some shifts across the
range of usable enablers will occur.

4. A world that makes decarbonisation its priority is

the most favourable as this significantly acceler-
ates the clean innovation and adoption creating
new opportunities for growth and jobs.

T I V E 5. The current geopolitical trend that puts focus

I CA on food and security concerns does not favour

IN D decarbonisation and will not bring shipping

anywhere close to its ambitions. Getting closer
to the ambitions requires even stronger decar-

INDICATIVE
bonisation efforts than those currently envisaged
in Clear Sky.

Figure 5: Harvey ball assessment of

the 37 enablers explored in the study

ICATIVE
12
 Usable decarbonisation enablers now and in 2030 given
the maritime transition scenarios
Usable NOW Usable in 2030 in a Storms scenario
# of enablers
#within category
of enablers within category Usable NOW # of enablers
within
Usable in 2030 in a Storms scenario
# of enablers
within category
category
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0

X…

X…
s

ls
ns

ity
s

es
ns

ity
s

er
s

ls
ce
el

re
em
cin

o-

io

ce
el
ro

cin

o-

tio

ro
ti o

ar

ur
ti o
fu

ar
su

at
ur

fu
r-t

nt

ur

r-t
an

nt
st

po
an

sa
ul
ti -

as
ul
la

ti -
a

la
so

we

co

so
sy

we

co
rc

i
Fin

tim
gu

rc

e
ul

Fin
gu

tim
ul

el
m

m
er

Ci

er
er

Ci
ns
po
M

fu

ns
Re

po
M

Re
op
rt
ow

op
rt
ow
w

io

ti -

io
n
Po

Po

n
po

at
ee

ip

at
ul
p

ee

ip
p
er
Sh

er
er

Sh
er
el

Gr

Gr
Op
h

Op
fu

h
Ot

Ot
ti -
ul
M

Usable at scale Usable within limits

Usable at scale Usable within limits

Usable in 2030 in a Swells scenario

# of enablers
Usable in 2030 in a Clean Sky
Usable in 2030 in a Clear Sky scenario
within category
Usable in 2030 in a Swells scenario
# of enablers
# of enablers within category
within category # of enablers within category scenario
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
X…

X…
s

ls
ns

ity
s

s
s

es
ity
s

er
s

n
ns

ls
g
re
ce
el

em

ce
el
cin

o-

io

cin

o-
ro

tio

ro
ti o

ur
ti o
ar

ar
fu

fu
su

at
ur

r-t

ur

r-t
nt

nt
po
an

st

sa
an

as
ul

ul
ti -

ti -
la

la
a
so

so
we

co

we
sy

co
i

i
rc

rc
Fin

e
tim
gu

Fin

tim
gu
ul

ul

el
m

m
er

Ci

er

Ci
er

ns
po
M

fu

ns
po
M
Re

Re
op

op
rt

rt
ow

ow
w

ti -
io

io
n
Po

Po

n
po

at

at
ul
ee

ip

ee

ip
p

p
er

er
Sh

Sh
er

er
el

Gr

Gr
Op

Op
h

h
fu

Ot
Ot

ti -
ul
M

Usable at scale Usable within limits

Usable at scale Usable within limits

Figure 6: Usable decarbonisation enablers now and in 2030 given the maritime transition scenarios

The fastest progress in decarbonisation will naturally

occur in a world that makes reducing GHG emissions Irrespective of the direction the world may
an increasingly explicit priority locally and globally. In take, sooner or later the actors in the maritime
this Clear Sky scenario, public and private actors be- industry will activate their respective bundles of
come increasingly aligned on decarbonisation. Actors decarbonisation enablers, either voluntarily or
collaborate on decarbonisation but continue to com- forced by regulators or external realities.
pete beyond this common goal. This type of world
creates over time the highest number of usable ena-
blers (usable at scale or usable within limits) across
Understanding ecosystem dynamics
the cluster of maritime value chains, driving a steady
to execute collectively
decline of GHG emissions. But such a future may not
evolve, or it may take a lot of time till it arrives. Nev- Neither the maritime industry nor individual players
ertheless, the private sector can push boundaries to can decarbonise alone. Decarbonisation requires col-
accelerate decarbonisation irrespective of potential lective efforts from a broader group of stakeholders
less favourable scenarios anticipating the costs of that come together to work on and implement decar-
non-action. bonisation solutions.

13
Such new partnerships are emerging and the relation- Blue Sky Maritime Coalition,viii Cargo Owners for Zero
ships have their own stakeholder dynamics in form Emissions Vessels (coZEV), and IMO’s initiative on
of dependencies, tensions and synergies (figure 7). Coordinated Actions to Reduce Emissions from Ship-
Examples for coalitions are the Global Maritime Fo- ping (IMO CARESix). Some private-public partner-
rumiv with the Getting to Zero Coalition,v Global Cen- ships have also been launched, such as the Euro-
tre for Maritime Decarbonization (GCMD), vi Mærsk pean Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF)x and the
Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping,vii Zero-Emission Shipping Mission.xi

Interdependencies, tensions, and synergies between related value chains

Energy generation, Industrial

distribution, and production
consuming value value chains
chains
Marine Fuel Shipbuilding
Value Chain Value Chain
(from well to bunker) (from build to reuse)

Maritime Operational Value Chain

(from port to port) (fuels and ships in use)

Trade and
transport, global
Figure 7: The maritime sector in supply chains
relation to other industries

Effective execution on decarbonisation enablers re- need to be regularly informed by the private sector
quires a focus on the most influential stakeholders. to ensure that policies and programmes support and
Across the ecosystem beyond the shippers or ben- don’t hinder the decarbonisation efforts.
eficial cargo owners (BCOs), the ship owners / op-
erators / charterers are the most influential actors.
They can drive change as other stakeholders like fuel While recognising and complying with the anti-
providers, shipbuilders and seaports follow their de- competitive requirements in shipping which
cisions. But each chain also has its own key influenc- creates a cost-optimisation culture there are
ers. In the marine fuel value chain, the energy pro- significant benefits in driving decarbonisation
ducers are the powerhouses, and in the shipbuilding together with other public and private players
value chain shipbuilders and engine manufacturers across clusters of value chains but also actors
are critical for decarbonisation. In the maritime op- beyond the maritime ecosystem in interrelated
erational value chain, it is the charterers as well as clusters, like suppliers of shipbuilding materials
shippers and shipping companies that need to carry or city governments.
the torch. Governments play an important role too and

14
Do whatever you can do, and do it now age is moving more slowly this front-footed approach
Many positive developments have been recorded in opens opportunities to build competitive advantage in
recent years that shows that the maritime industry premium markets.
makes significant efforts to live up to the decarboni-
sation challenge.
Even in the most slow-moving decarbonisation
“Following a surge in orders over the past year, scenario considered, the current state-of-play
LNG-powered ‘dual fuel’ containerships orders now of enablers, and the progress anticipated,
represent 25% of the total orderbook by TEU capac- indicates that a move on to the front foot now is
ity. This figure rises to 28% if methanol propulsion is a non-regret strategy for all key actors.
added. The number of LNG-powered ships on order
has now risen to 138 vessels of 1.67 MTEU, com-
pared to fewer than 50 ships of around 720,000 TEU
Driving the maritime transition:
a year ago. CMA CGM has made the greatest com-
Recommendations and call to action
mitment to LNG, at 80% of its current orderbook and
by far most ships in service, but MSC now has more This study has yielded the following seven recom-
capacity on order. The average size of LNG unit or- mendations that public and private stakeholders can
dered by the main carriers is 14,400 TEU, with Hapag act upon now.
Lloyd’s 23,660 TEU ships currently the only mega-
maxes on order. So far, PIL is the only major Asian Recommendation #1: Build scenarios to
carrier to adopt LNG. The majority of the new vessels stress-test current decarbonisation strategies
will enter the market in 2023 and 2024“, according per value chain and across clusters
to Alphaliner (Dynaliners Mai 2022). With its recent
order of six 15,000 TEU dual-fuel methanol-powered Underlying finding: Scenario thinking, and their
vessels CMA CGM follows in the footsteps of Maersk sharing, helps to manage risks for example to avoid
which has currently 13 container ships capable run- stranded assets and develop understanding across
ning on green methanol on order. the cluster of maritime value chains of different path-
ways to the future and to outline their implications for
The IMO has introduced the short-term measures en- decarbonisation
ergy efficiency design index (EEDI), energy efficiency
existing ship index (EEXI), and carbon intensity indica- Conclusion: We can leverage the strategic context
tor (CII). The European Union (EU) Commission has which the different scenarios provide
proposed the Fit for 55 package,xii which adapts a well-
to-wake approach through its FuelEU Maritime compo- Recommendation #2: The maritime industry
nent. Other contemplated legislative mechanisms to to urge IMO member states’ governments to
reduce GHG emissions that will increasingly affect the supportxiii the proposed “zero by 2050” planxiv
maritime industry are the EU Emissions Trading Sys- and follow through the current roadmaps with
tem (ETS), the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD) and detailed targets
the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
But also, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and Underlying finding: All developed scenario path-
the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR). ways show that we don’t get anywhere near the 2018
IMO decarbonisation ambitions, and yet indicate the
In their own competitive interest, the actors in the mar- potential competitive and commercial advantages
itime ecosystem should not only implement individual- from acceleration
ly and collectively decarbonisation strategies but also
contribute actively to an open and aligned world. This Conclusion: We need a stronger ambition and more
will counter the risk of being left behind with stranded aggressive pathway based on accurate GHG calcu-
capital, and in scenarios where the world on aver- lation and monitoring

15
 Recommendation #3: Establish cross-value Recommendation #6: Establish sufficient,
chain coordination, e.g., through partnerships transparent, and predictable financing and
and zero-emission corridors / networks pricing mechanisms, like a levy on high carbon
marine fuels and subsidies for low carbon
solutions
Underlying finding: We face bottlenecks and gaps in
decarbonisation across interdependent value chains,
e.g., we have dual-fuel engines but not enough alter- Underlying finding: Making decarbonisation in the
native fuel maritime industry work requires pathways that are
financially incentivised and viable across all chains
Conclusion: We need a holistic approach to decar-
bonisation and a cluster view on value chains of fuel, Conclusion: We need to find ways to trigger and
shipbuilding, and operations finance the change

Recommendation #4: Every actor and sector Recommendation #7: Act now! In our self-
in the industry needs to identify and focus on interest to avoid exponential decarbonization
its relevant enablers across their respective costs
value chains to achieve company, industry, and
country milestones Underlying finding: Many decarbonisation enablers
are ready to use, and decarbonising shipping is a
Underlying finding: There is no single silver bullet, complex and costly task that will become more costly
however this is not a curse but a cure in our diverse if further action is delayed
world in different stages of development
Conclusion: We can already activate a range of de-
Conclusion: We need to remain flexible and develop carbonisation enablers across the maritime value
the “37 enablers” for different cases and sustainable chains and accelerate developments that are in the
profitability broader self-interest of all stakeholders

Recommendation #5: Create a global public- Call to action

private coalition of the willing to identify /
activate scalable enablers across all chains Stress-testing has shown strong support for all rec-
ommendations. This appreciation of the approach
Underlying finding: Given all circumstances regula- and recommendations by a representative group of
tors are ill-prepared to decide or guide the maritime experts of the industry ecosystem makes the work a
sector in respect to what enablers to activate along strong case for escalating actions and attention
and across the chains immediately. The frameworks applied and outcomes
achieved have shown that scenario thinking, and the
Conclusion: Leading players in the industry need to fundamental value-chain / decarbonisation enabler
take initiative and show what works and what doesn’t / stakeholder dynamics concept ensure a structured,
so that other public and private actors are better in- holistic, and balanced approach to decarbonisation.
formed for their own decisions; but what works for one
may not work for others
This study provides the framework for
practical structural collaborative action
now, which is the only way to ensure that
the maritime industry aligns with the Paris
agreement and exceeds the IMO 2018
ambitions.

16
Table of contents

Executive summary...................................................................................................2

Foreword....................................................................................................................5

Setting the scene......................................................................................................6

Table of contents....................................................................................................17

1. Decarbonisation in shipping needs extensive knowledge building................ 18

2. Navigating uncertainty: Three maritime transition scenarios........................... 20

3. Scoping the decarbonisation space: The cluster of maritime value chains.... 23

4. Decarbonisation options: Enablers anchored and assessed........................... 27

5. Understanding ecosystem dynamics to execute collectively.......................... 38

6. Do what you can do, and do it now ................................................................. 42

7. Driving the maritime transition: Recommendations and call to action .......... 44

Table of appendices.................................................................................................... 47

Appendix 1: Applied methodology............................................................................. 48

Appendix 2: Maritime Transition Scenarios................................................................. 50

Appendix 3: Identified enablers and their characteristics......................................... 57

Appendix 4: Scoring (Harvey balls) of general enablers........................................... 60

Appendix 5: Arguments for the evaluation of the general enablers........................ 61

Appendix 6: Assessment (Harvey balls) of dynamic enablers.................................. 65

Appendix 7: Arguments for the evaluation of the dynamic enablers...................... 66

Appendix 8: Usable enablers now and per scenario in 2030................................... 75

Appendix 9: Long list of suggestions........................................................................... 76

Appendix 10: Initiator, authors, and contributors....................................................... 78

17
1. Decarbonisation in shipping needs
extensive knowledge building
This report explores holistic pathways to approaching This exercise has been a continual interplay between,
or exceeding the 2018 IMO decarbonisation ambition on the one side, adopting a systemic view and ho-
to ensure that the maritime industry contributes its fair listic approach and, on the other side, exploring the
share to the global effort to fight climate change. This detailed characteristics and usability of decarbonisa-
mission brought together a diverse group of experts tion enablers (technologies / solutions). This is use-
from different geographies and sectors of the larger ful as effective decarbonisation requires that multiple
maritime ecosystem to crystalise critical elements of enablers across several value chains are adopted in
decarbonisation strategies, and to identify concrete parallel and within a broader framework to avoid gaps
recommendations that actors in the maritime industry and bottlenecks, create synergies, and achieve the
can act upon now. targeted decarbonisation impact on the shipping in-
dustry.
This report is a compilation of insights and analysis.
While a full concensus on every exact detail of the re- The industry is far from homogeneous with its broad
port has not been reached, all participating organisa- range of business models and sub-sectors including
tions and experts appreciate the initiative and support deep-sea shipping, shortsea shipping, and inland wa-
the recommendations, and the call to action. terway shipping. The sector includes container ships,
oil and gas tankers, other wet bulk carriers and dry
The work summarised in this report should be seen bulk vessels, passenger and (ro-ro) ferries, tugboats,
first as a guide for public and private sector deci- barges, and cruise ships. These may be operated as
sion-making and second as a contribution to building fixed-route liner services or based on voyage plans
knowledge on decarbonisation across the maritime (routes and schedules) laid out years in advance such
ecosystem. A playbook assisting public and private as is common practise in cruise shipping, or in a flex-
actors to organise, plan and drive their decarbonisa- ible but unpredictable way dictated by the immediate
tion efforts has been included in section 6. Over time, demand for ships and the merchandise they carry like
this knowledge will grow in depth, breadth, and ro- in tramp shipping. Financially, the sector has been
bustness. A required next step is to quantify further very cyclical, fluctuating between heavy losses and
critical components and the implications of decarbon- extraordinary profits very recently. The maritime In-
isation, in particular the impact on economic growth dustry is highly dependent on fossil fuels and emit-
and job creation. ted about 1.2 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) in 2020, equivalent to about 3% of global GHG
The methodology applied to the exercise is depicted emissions.xv The International Maritime Organization
in appendix 1. In summary the approach applied was, (IMO) has challenged the shipping industry to cut an-
a series of discussions organised in four workshops, nual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least
17 interviews, and 1 stress-testing exercise outlined half by 2050, compared to 2008. However, according
and scrutinised three maritime transition scenarios to the fourth IMO GHG study using 2008 as a base,
(see section 2); defined a cluster of three key maritime maritime GHG emissions could increase by 90% to
value chains as the scope of decarbonisation (section 130% by 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario with-
3); identified, assessed, and placed 37 decarbonisa- out major decarbonisation efforts. This target is cur-
tion enablers positioned across the maritime value rently under review with net zero by 2050 under dis-
chain cluster (section 4); expanded the scope of re- cussion.
view and action to a larger system of interdependent
clusters of value chains while outlining the dynamics The decarbonisation discourse is complex and dy-
between different stakeholder groups (section 5); de- namic as potential partial solutions are many and in
rived seven key takeaways and a practical playbook differing stages of maturity. With various approaches
(section 6); and highlighted seven recommendations and types of decarbonisation enablers – like low-car-
and a call to action (section 7). bon and zero emission fuels, ecological ship design,

18
and digital solutions to reduce GHG emissions – the Knowledge developed by institutions, training provid-
common knowledge base across the relevant areas is ers, and through relationships and knowledge transfer
generally shallow. Specialists have deep insights into across the universe of stakeholders in the maritime
their usually narrower fields but many lack the broad- decarbonisation ecosystem is needed to inform deci-
er understanding of the whole ecosystem. sion-making on decarbonisation matters in the public
and private sector.
The knowledge required for effective and efficient de-
carbonisation stretches across various dimensions The required system-wide knowledge can be built
such as how to produce, move, store, and safely uti- through cross-functional cross-stakeholder “knowl-
lise different types of fuel; the construction of envi- edge platforms and teams”. These expert groups
ronmentally sound and efficient ships; and the de- should be well connected globally with the relevant
mands of environmentally friendly, safe, and efficient parts of the public and private sector to build and con-
water transport operations powered by different types stantly update the necessary knowledge on decar-
of ships operating between different ports within and bonisation to inform papers and plans that support
between different regions of the world. A holistic view decisionmakers in their work.
on emissions requires a life-cycle assessment (LCA).
The LCA includes not only fuel combustion but also
emissions from ship manufacturing, maintenance, Each maritime business model drives different
and repair; infrastructure construction, operation, approaches and decisions on energy needs
maintenance, and repair; and fuel production and dis- and decarbonisation based on factors that need
tribution. Without LCA, emissions can be significantly to be deeply understood.
underestimated.

Life cycle analysis (LCA):

What is it?lii
Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a method of
quantifying the environmental impacts as-
sociated with a given good over its lifecycle.
The LCA is based on the list of invento-
ries of resources used, and pollutants and
carbon dioxide (CO2) generated during the
production and use of a product or asset.
This allows a full assessment of the impact
of a product, process, or activity on human
health, the ecosystem function, and natural
resource depletion. In this decarbonization
project, LCA is applied to e.g., fuel supply,
shipbuilding, and ship operations.

19
2. Navigating uncertainty:
Three maritime transition scenarios
Scenario thinking helps to imagine and describe • High initial growth, reform
structurally plausible future states of the world and neglect and current
understand their implications to inform our decisions. fragmentation
This is particularly valuable in a volatile industry and • Disruptive, late but fast
times of high uncertainty as these can be moments of decarbonization
shifting paradigms. Considering the high investments
in ships, seaports and operations, anticipating these
changes is critical. Given the major climate change- • Slow growth, limited domestic
caused disruptions, scenario thinking can help us reforms, geopolitical polarization
to review public and private sector decarbonisation • Late and slow decarbonization
plans in light of anticipated developments to ensure
that our strategies are robust in confronting a wide
range of possible futures. • Moderate growth, reform
breakthroughs, renewed
Three Shell scenarios (figure 8), namely Waves, cooperation
Islands, and Sky 1.5, were our point of departure • Early, accelerated
to set our minds, frame, and kick-start the thinking decarbonization to reach
and co-creation process to develop maritime-specific Paris goals
transition scenarios (figure 1). These explore the im-
plications of three different emphasis of socio-political
priorities in the coming years, with either wealth first Figure 8: The general (Shell) scenario narratives
(Waves), security first (Islands) or health/well-being used for characterizing maritime scenario narratives in
first (Sky1.5).

The world is gravitating towards the Waves scenario

with mounting tendencies towards Islands. This re-
sults from a strong desire for a swift economic recov-
ery from the pandemic mixed with increasing interest
in national autonomy reflected in the political direc-
tion many nations have been pursuing over recent
Swells
years. The expert group does not welcome the em-
phasis on short-term or narrow self-interests inher-
ent in these drifts and urges the maritime industry to In Swells, climate action remains important but is
help gravitating towards Sky 1.5. This would require initially secondary to short-term financial interests.
a paradigm shift towards more broadly conceived Realpolitik and narrow economic focus allow an in-
self-interests that recognise the resilience and com- itial expansion in the use of fossil fuels. However,
petitive opportunities that will arise from alignments subsequent severe disruptions in the world driven
and collaborations that pursue human well-being in- by climate-change are blamed on the lack of previ-
cluding deep and early attention to reducing GHG ous attention. This pent-up decarbonisation pressure
emissions. leads to accelerated but costly efforts later, support-
ed by advanced technological progress. Self-interest
As the result of the current exercise in scenario think- has initially been largely perceived in cost terms, and
ing, Waves was expanded into Swells, Islands into resilience judged in economic strength. Within the
Storms, and Sky 1.5 into Clear Sky (depicted in Ap- maritime sector, developments are driven by multiple
pendix 2) to capture potential futures in a maritime entrepreneurial agents with limited new collaboration
setting. structures and approaches beyond profit-protecting

20
arrangements. Uncertainty about key decarbonisa-
tion technologies prevails until the mid-2030s creat-
ing hesitance among the primarily economically driv-
en industry players in respect to green investments.
Decarbonisation is mainly motivated by compliance Clear
requirements and obviously convincing business cas- Sky
es. Nevertheless, pioneer individual actors undertake
strategic moves that position them to access longer- In Clear Sky a new era of global alignments emerges
term competitive benefits. Large stakeholders, origi- driven by the response to climate change, COVID-19,
nating from developed economies with the financial and the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The world moves to-
flexibility to manoeuvre, invest in greener approaches wards closer cooperation putting human well-being
in advance of growing anti-fossil regulation, providing first. This is not due to an outbreak of altruism but to
a starting point for less prosperous stakeholders to the recognition of mutual interests and common pres-
adopt decarbonisation solutions when obliged later. sures, and the value of learning from each other and
the past. Alignments occur not only through deliber-
ate choice but through responses to common pres-
sures and races to secure competitive advantages.
New alliances are formed with new major resource
holders for the green energy transition. Climate action
is accelerated, supported by broad alignment across
industries and nations seeking their individual com-
petitive advantages alongside climate action. Climate
policy returns to the centre stage of international and
Storms domestic politics, resulting in rapid and deep electri-
fication and decarbonisation of the global economy
In Storms, governments and societies generally em- with growth increasingly dominated by renewable re-
phasise the immediate safety and comfort of their sources. Linked to the maritime sector, developments
own populations and seek nearby alliances to achieve emerge across all areas of the logistics and transport
their goal of security first. In this scenario, interna- industry with improved alignment between sea and
tional cooperation is fragmented, international trade land connections. There is a changed approach to
is constrained, economic progress is subdued, and viewing anti-competitive principles in the maritime in-
less money is invested in renewables beyond local- dustry with more public-private cooperation reflected
ised solutions. CO2 emissions are slowing, but not in increasingly effective maritime decarbonisation co-
because of decarbonisation efforts but due to muted alitions. Companies continue to compete aggressive-
economic growth. The lack of investment in sustain- ly in business but cooperate in broader decarbonisa-
able solutions causes pent-up problems to emerge tion frameworks.
later. Global decoupling is the result of the inability to
close the gaps between the nations and establish a The more open world like Swells, and more aligned
new global pact, although local and regional trading approaches across the ecosystem offered by Clear
relationships may prosper. Within the maritime sector, Sky, allow knowledge-exchange and broader collab-
trade in commodities as well as manufactured goods oration to develop. The early alignments and frame-
is depressed in line with reduced growth in the global works described in Clear Sky concentrate resources
economy. The sluggish global trade outlook and fo- and bring early decarbonisation benefits. In Swells,
cus on domestic economies adds friction to accessing however, with its focus on economic recovery and
capital for investments in newer, and more sustain- growth, the initial neglect of the consequences of cli-
able, technologies and practices. This scenario re- mate change leads to an expensive course-correc-
sults in a heterogenous landscape in regulation and tion with massive investments in decarbonisation in
a drift away from IMO legislation. Different fuel types the 2030s / 2040s. Storms enables quick local de-
and standards emerge as preferred routes in different cision-making but mainly on matters that serve the
countries and different parts of the world, making effi- interests of a specific jurisdiction or trading bloc, like
cient international operations in the maritime industry using their own local energy resource bases regard-
increasingly challenging. less of global implications.

21
The three potential futures show not only different im- The 2022 common view is that the 2018 IMO ambi-
pacts on decarbonisation and on the maturity of the tions will be missed. This is confirmed by the study as
decarbonisation enablers dependent on the scenario none of the scenarios considered succeed to deliver
unfolding, but also on the effectiveness and efficien- on the IMO 2018 ambitions which calls for increasing
cy of the sector along its value chains. In Swells, ef- efforts towards more ambitious IMO goals which are
ficiency is initially the highest because growth and currently under review to accelerate decarbonisation
returns are prioritised with a tendency to avoid or efforts (figure 9). As current actions fall short, the mar-
postpone investments in decarbonisation. In Storms, itime industry has proposed a plan to deliver net zero
value chains get increasingly disjointed with signifi- by 2050.
cant repercussions on the performance of the global
economy and the climate movement.
The projections prepared based on the three
While Clear Sky is the steadiest in decarbonisation, maritime transition scenarios show that
Storms can beat Swells regionally up to the 2030s / decarbonisation efforts in the maritime sector
2040s due to its faster decision-making and focus on need to be accelerated as none of the resulting
local resources which will be renewable in some ge- pathways brings us close to the IMO 2018
ographies. This changes quickly as Swells has seen ambitions.
more technological innovation and remains globally
more open which allows a much-coordinated response
when there are politically enforced course-changes.

Shipping-Freight Co2 Emissions

Shipping-Freight CO2 Emissions

1.0 IMO stretched ambition

0.9 IMO target

EU
0.8
IEA-NZE
0.7
0.6
CO2 (bln tonne)

Islands
0.5
Waves
0.4
Sky1.5
0.3
0.2
0.1 INDICATIVE
0.0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year

Figure 9: Progression forecasts of Shipping-Freight carbon dioxide emissions

(Source: Shell Energy Transformation Scenarios 2021, IEA, IMO and compiled by Wim Thomas)

22
3. Scoping the decarbonisation space:
The cluster of maritime value chains
The carbon reduction discussion in the maritime in- should add value. With the value come the emissions.
dustry is often focused on decarbonising assets like Hence, we should apply the value chain thinking to
ships for example through installing lower emissions drive decarbonisation across our economy and the
engines and establishing storage and fuelling spots for maritime sector.
alternative fuel. While these are valid considerations it
is essential to focus on the entire range of elements Three interrelated maritime value chains (figure 10)
needed to decarbonise the maritime industry. have been identified that play a critical role in decar-
bonising shipping: the marine fuel value chainxvi , the
The well-to-wake approach addresses the lifecycle shipbuilding value chain, and the maritime opera-
GHG emissions and shows that the industry stakehold- tional value chain.
ers need to expand their vision and scope of decarbon-
isation beyond onboard fuel consumption. Ship own- The three critical maritime value chains are interde-
ers, ship operators and charterers need to account for pendent (figure 11). Allowing for the most effective
upstream shipbuilding and fuel production equipment decarbonisation means aligning supply and demand
and processes and their resulting GHG emissions. across this cluster of chains. The alternative marine
Capturing the entire impact requires a full LCA. fuel supply chain needs to supply enough fuel for
ships with alternative fuel engines that are demand-
The scope and object of decarbonisation should be a ed by ship owners / operators / charterers given the
cluster of critical value chains. Value in the economy demands of each sub-sector. The value chains re-
is delivered by such chains. A value chain is a step- quire functioning simultaneously to ensure a seam-
by-step business model that brings a product or ser- less process of decarbonization without gaps, bottle-
vice from idea to reality. Every step along the chains necks, and shortages.

Interdependent value chains providing

meaning to ecosystem actor collaboration

Responding to local, regional,

and/or global shipping demand

Marine Fuel Shipbuilding

Value Chain Value Chain
(from well to bunker) (from build to reuse)

Maritime Operational Value Chain

(from port to port) (fuels and ships in use)

Figure 10: Interdependent value chains in the maritime ecosystem

23
 Interdependency between the value chains

Characteristics of fuel
to be available

Marine Fuel Value Chain Shipbuilding Value Chain

(from well to bunker) (from built to reuse)

Produce Distribute Store Design Build Deliver Upgrade Reuse /

fuel fuel fuel recycle

Fuel available for use Ship for use Ship to be upgraded

Maritime Operational Value Chain

(from port to port (fuel and ships in use))

Sea voyage
Port visit (incl. Port visit (incl.
(poss. fuelling
poss fuelling) poss fuelling)
on the way)

Figure 11: Interdependency between the value chains

The marine fuel value chain The shipbuilding value chain

At a high level, the marine fuel value chain involves The shipbuilding value chain consists of steps like
subsequent steps around primary (renewable) re- ship design, procurement (for example of steel), pro-
sources provision (for example natural gas), process- duction (component production, assembly, and inte-
ing (for instance of biomass from domestic waste), gration), and post-production (maintenance, repair,
transportation (e.g., of green methanol to the storage and reuse / recycling). A reduction of GHG emissions
or bunker spots), and consumption by the ship during can be achieved in a variety of ways through decar-
a voyage. Vital stakeholders for producing alterna- bonisation enablers including wind support, hydrody-
tive / clean / green fuels are production / processing namics and hull design, and dual-fuel and multi-fuel
technology providers, the energy companies that use engines. Efficiency measures and retrofits that have
these technologies and the maritime sector that car- successfully reduced GHG emissions in the maritime
ries these fuels around the world to the places where sector in the past will stay relevant. The more efficient
they are needed. The energy transition will not elimi- a ship is the less green fuel is needed. This is an im-
nate but shift dependencies from fossil fuels produc- portant point considering the scarcity of alternative
ing nations to renewable energy producing countries. fuels.
This brings new opportunity to the global south.

24
 of ships helps to optimise fuel consumption per trans-
ported unit. The long tail of companies with only a few
The dual fuel engine: what is it?liii ships may make ship size optimisation challenging.
Dual fuel engines can use both gasoil and But exploring all ways of optimisation is even more
natural gas, contributing to the security of important in a world where alternative fuels remain
energy supply. They allow ships to be oper- scarce for quite some time. Prices are under upward
ated on either an interim fuel such as liqui- pressure due to high demand in green fuels as ship-
fied natural gas (LNG) or, on the one hand, ping competes with other sectors. A market-based
the traditional high-carbon very low sulphur mechanism (MBM) may help us to further close the
fuel oil (0.5% VLSFO) or high carbon high price gap.
sulphur fuel oil (3.5% HSFO), on the other
hand, emerging alternative fuels like bio- The value chain perspective allows to identify gaps,
diesel, green methanol and green ammo- bottlenecks and shortages that cause imbalances and
nia. Change over from one fuel to another dysfunction across the cluster (figure 12). Today there
is achieved without any interruption in the is a shortage of alternative fuel supply while manufac-
power output of the engine. turers of ships and ship engines have developed and
promote alternative solutions; every new generation
of ships emits less. However, the lack of alternative
fuels discourages most of the ship owners / operators
/ charterer to order or operate low-carbon and zero
The shipbuilding value chain and marine fuel value emissions ships. Ramping up alternative fuel produc-
chain inform each other. What kind of ships / engines tion would reverse the situation. The ready availability
are built depends on what fuels are available and of alternative fuels (at the right price) would reduce
demanded but also on the business model of the the hesitation to invest in low carbon engines and
owners / operators / charterers, which includes the ships as it would give ship owners increased comfort
geography of operation, the type of use, the intend- that they will not at one point suffer from stranded
ed length of ownership etc. Fuels with higher energy assets. At that point, shipbuilders and engine man-
density provide more autonomy and require smaller ufactures would face higher demand for their clean
tanks giving more space to cargo and passengers solutions as ship operators and charterers would in-
and vice versa. creasingly adopt.

The maritime operational value chain A focus on the whole cluster of value chains will also
ensure that the different components of decarbonisa-
Steps along the maritime operational value chain are tion work smoothly together. This also de-risks invest-
fuelling / provisioning, loading / boarding, steaming, ments and prepares the grounds for different ways of
unloading / disembarking, and refuelling. Faster turn- financing across the cluster.
arounds drive higher utilisation of the assets. Bunker
locations, fuel prices, as well as weather conditions
impact the routing. Speed is an important lever to re-
duce GHG emissions. But also operating the right size

25
 The state of readiness, availability, and financial vi-
ability of the enablers of decarbonisation across the
The importance of energy densityliv cluster drives different strategies for the three critical
maritime value chains. Today, each value chain faces
Energy density is the amount of energy stored different challenges. The alternative marine fuel val-
in each system or region of space per unit ue chain needs to ramp up urgently, the shipbuilding
volume that is released by a given mass or value chain needs to accelerate production in line with
volume of fuel. Different fuels have different the growing production of alternative fuels but also
energy density levels, and the energy density anticipate future developments in the R&D focus As
of the fuel chosen affects the space needed ramping up the green marine fuel value chain, ac-
for storage in a ship and for storage onshore. tors along the operational value chain needs to adopt
non-fuel decarbonisation technologies and practices.
Through regular exchange of information shippers
and regulators can support these efforts.

Decarbonising shipping means decarbonising

value chains which represents a major cross-
ecosystem challenge but with the effort also
come opportunities in form of new growth, new
jobs and a healthier life.

High level strategy per critical maritime value chain

Marine Fuel Value Chain

(from well to bunker) Ramp-up

Shipbuilding Value Chain

Accelerate
(from built to reuse)

Maritime Operational Value Chain

Adopt
(from port to port (fuel and ships in use))

Figure 12: High level strategy per critical maritime value chain

26
4. Decarbonisation options:
Enablers anchored and assessed

Multi-Fuel
Power
Marine Fuel Systems Shipbuilding
Value Chain Value Chain
Green power-to-X Ship Optimization
technologies Multi-fuels
Other power sources
Regulations
Financing
Port
Circularity
Measures

Maritime Operational
Value Chain
Figure 13: Examples of
Operations Controls enablers related to the three
interdependent value chains

A broad range of decarbonisation enablers have been Most of the decisions made by individual actors in
identified (appendix 3). In this study 37 enablers have the maritime decarbonisation ecosystem are based
been identified, assessed, and positioned across the straightforwardly on considerations of what is current-
cluster. Some of the enablers are specific to only one ly possible, for example the types and quantities of
of the maritime value chains while others cut across fuels provided by the marine fuel value chain in spe-
two or all three chains. Figure 13 shows a set of se- cific regions of the world, the performance of (dual-fu-
lected enablers with their position, and the cross-cut- el) ship engines that represents a low-risk solution
ting role of some of the enablers. for those that wish to move towards lower emissions
ships and operating more quickly, etc.
Thus, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to decar-
bonisation but there are multiple options to reduce Driving decarbonisation in shipping requires that the
emissions. Even if some have limited impact they enablers are clearly understood in respect to their
sum up. Today, we need to bundle several enablers impact, ease of implementation, acceptance across
to achieve significant results. The actors can pick and stakeholders, readiness, availability, and financial vi-
choose from a long menu of enablers (figure 14 and ability. This assessment is far from being easy and
appendix 3). Pioneers make multiple bets as it will some of the factors can be significantly influenced by
probably remain unclear which ones will become the the introduction of regulation with associated uncer-
most prominent ones. tainties in timing and scope.

27
 Identified enablers for decarbonising shipping

Green power-to-X Operations controls

technologies
• JIT Port Calls
• Electrolysis solutions • Advanced weather
Port measures for green fuels from routing Ship optimisation
• Fuel storage renewable electricity • Commercial contracts • Wind Support
/ Fuelling • Technologies to produce • Slot Management • Hydrodynamics
equipment for green fuels from biomass • Speed Optimisation • Ship size
alternative fuels / waste / carbon • GHG emissions optimisation
• On-shore power calculation • Fleet renewal
supply • Autonomous ships

Multi-fuels Circularity
• LNG • Recyclable ships of
• Green LNG / LBG recyclable material
• Green methane GHG • Carbon capture and
• Biodiesel reduction storage (CCS)
• Green methanol for green
• Green ammonia shipping
• Green hydrogen Financing
• Incentives for green fuel
production
Other power sources
• Incentives for green
• Green electricity shipbuilding
• Nuclear • Green innovation / R&D funds

Multi-fuel power systems Regulations

• Multi-fuel ICE engines / • Market based measures (MBM)
onboard storages - ETS and levy
• Fuel cell technology • EEDI/EEXI
• Batteries powered motors • CII
• Upgradability / Retrofitting • Gradual reduction of carbon content in fuel

Figure 14: Identified enablers for decarbonising shipping

But it is not only about technical aspect and business Understanding the characteristics, impact, costs,
considerations. Enablers also differ in respect to their and other considerations of the entire set of identi-
societal acceptance, for example the reputation of nu- fied enablers is critical for good decision-making. For
clear suffers from disasters like Chernobyl and Fuku- this study, each of the 37 identified decarbonisation
shima and ammonia because of its toxic nature. But, enablers were scored based on general factors and
for example, wind-assisted ships enjoy high accept- dynamic criteria on a scale from 0 to 4 (0/1 = no/low,
ance across stakeholders. Also, geography plays a 4 = high).
role. Preferences and sensitivities vary from country
to country and continent to continent.

28
Three general criteria were used to assess the ena- tion enablers. This will increase clarity and comfort
blers based on more static factors: with key stakeholders in the public and private sector.
While “wrong picks” may still be unavoidable for some
• Impact on GHG reduction, which is an assessment time we can strengthen our knowledge base and re-
of the contribution this enabler provides to duce uncertainty through analysis, experimentation,
decarbonising shipping and adoption.

• Ease of execution, which reflects the effort,

complexities and risks associated with activating
each decarbonisation enabler
Green fuel: what is it?lv
• Acceptance across stakeholders, which reflects The term “green” describes any type of
today’s level of approval of each specific enabler energy that can be delivered and used
by society without net addition of emissions to the at-
mosphere / biosphere. For molecular fuels,
Three dynamic factors were used to evaluate the this generally refers to those derived from
state and potential progress of each enabler between non-fossil hydrocarbon sources like bio-
now and 2030 dependent on the specific context and mass. This incorporates all kinds of organic
developments outlined for each of the three maritime matter, including plant and animal waste.
transition scenarios: They are considered carbon-neutral when
burned, emitting only the amount of CO2
• Readiness of solution, which reflects the state of absorbed during feedstock growth / produc-
maturity today and the expected progress made tion. As the feedstocks used to make green
in 2030 fuel are sustainable and naturally replen-
ished, they are considered renewable and
• Availability, which considers the expected supply eco-friendly. The production of fully green
for example of different alternative fuels and the fuels makes use of renewable energy in the
availability of for example digital solutions production process, such as wind or solar
power. Green fuels also include synthetic
• Financial viability, which is an assessment of or electrofuels (e-fuels), which are liquid, or
the current and anticipated cost/price levels of gaseous fuels produced with electricity from
the enablers dependent on envisaged scale and renewables, and carbon from biomass or
intervention per scenario. direct air capture. Examples for such e-fu-
els are synthetic natural gas (SNG), green
The outcome of this indicative exercise is depicted methanol or green ammonia.
in two Harvey balls tables. The enabler assessment
has been derived from discussions with experts sup-
plemented by secondary research (appendices 4-7).
This provides indications that are necessarily prelimi-
nary due to the immaturity of some solutions, the un-
certainties around the data, and the filters and biases Fuels
of data providers. In many areas more research and A range of alternative sources of power are being
experimentation are required. considered across all three value chains. Some are
currently more accepted than others. Some energy
Nevertheless, the general patterns are relatively clear, sources and storages are less favorable as the fuels
and meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the are heavy and take a large share of the total mass of
potential to implement, accelerate or neglect mean- the ship. So, it is not about the volume only. In a ho-
ingful deployment of decarbonisation enablers at this listic approach decarbonisation is a gradual exercise.
point and over time. Going forward, experts should In a process over years more and more carbon will be
commission further work to agree on characteristics taken out of the chains.
and data sources to establish a commonly accepted
base for comparisons of the different decarbonisa-

29
While increasingly available, LNG does not yield dra-
matic CO2 reductions, so this fossil fuel is considered
an intermediary step towards zero-emission shipping. Alternative fuels impact on ship
Of course, green LNG is an alternative fuel. LNG design and performance
also raises concerns because of methane leakage,
but which is factored into the GHG reduction assess- Methane, methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen
ment applied in this study. Furthermore, LNG engines are promising fuels for marine power sys-
are compatible with any bio or synthetic methane fuel tems for lower carbon or zero carbon mari-
solution. Other sources of power being pushed are time transportation.
biofuels and green electricity, either stored in batter-
ies or generated onboard, and used in shortsea and Methane
inland waterway shipping. Other low-carbon and zero
emissions solutions in development include beyond Methane in the form of liquified natural gas
beforementioned green LNG, also green methane, (LNG) is considered as a transition fuel for
green methanol, green ammonia, and green (or blue) ships. The development of methane from
hydrogen. These fuels can be used to generate power biomass and synthetic sources means there
or electricity. Biofuels and electricity are widely ac- is a pathway to carbon-neutral energy from
cepted in society. Ammonia faces some resistance LNG. Bio- and synthetic methane can be
as it is highly toxic. Handling of hydrogen is complex used initially as drop-in fuels alongside con-
as well and it has low energy density. Fuel-cell tech- ventional LNG to reduce its fossil carbon
nology with sufficient capacity for large ships, is still content and later, as supply increases, to
a decade away. Nuclear powered ships have been in replace it entirely.
military operation for some time but there is no recent
experience of nuclear propulsion in commercial use This pathway has both technically and logis-
and the solution is questioned due to safety and cost tical advantages. Engines and fuel supply
concerns. In 1959 the NS Savannah, the world’s first systems designed for LNG require no chang-
nuclear-powered merchant ship was launched fol- es to use bio- or synthetic methane. And as
lowed by three other nuclear merchant ships, name- well as being compatible with existing LNG
ly the German ore transporter Otto Hahn, Japan’s engines, the future carbon-neutral varieties
freighter Mutsu; and the Russian ice-breaking con- can also be used in the bunkering infrastruc-
tainer vessel Sevmorput. All four ships are no longer ture that has already been established for
in service, mainly due to safety incidents and cost LNG. This offers a head-start (both in terms
considerations. Beyond building the vessels, ports of time and financially) compared to other
worldwide would need to be equipped with facilities fuels once the carbon-neutral LNG becomes
for nuclear waste and refuelling ships with uranium commercially available.
are needed. Issue of insurance and accountability in
case of accidents are to be settled and some coun- However, methane as fuel is not a perfect
tries would refuse to accept the docking of nuclear solution – methane leakage during produc-
ships. Nevertheless, the nuclear-powered ships re- tion, storage, and combustion is still a chal-
main a topic of discussion.xviii lenge that negatively impacts the GHG foot-
print. Nevertheless, over the last 25 years
Except for drop-in biofuels all alternative fuels re- the methane leakage has been drastically
quire significant upskilling of the workforce to ensure reduced and continuing technology evolu-
well-functioning and safety. Organisations like Lloyd’s tions will reduce it further.
Register Foundationxix can support with insights for
the maritime training sector. Trainings in maritime in- Methanol
formaticsxx help with digital aspects of fuel usage and
with digital decarbonisation enablers, like just-in-time Until now, methanol has not been widely
arrivals or data-driven route optimisation. used as marine fuel. The easily and cheaply
produced industrial alcohol is today predom-

30
inantly made from natural gas, but the use of to other fuels and combustion can lead to high-
hydrogen from renewable electricity and recap- er nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions unless con-
tured carbon used to produce green methanol trolled either by after-treatment or by optimising
makes it carbon neutral. With better combus- the engine process. A regulatory framework and
tion and easier storage and handling compared class rules will need to be developed for its use
to ammonia, methanol could be a key compo- as a marine fuel.
nent of decarbonising the maritime sector.
Hydrogen
Methanol requires approximately double (2x)
the volume of fuel tank capacity compared to Marine dual-fuel engines and spark-ignited gas
marine diesel oil to maintain the same level of engines can already run on a fuel mix compris-
vessel endurance. As methanol is liquid at am- ing up to 15–25% hydrogen mixed into meth-
bient conditions it can be stored in convention- ane. Onboard storage in the quantities needed
al fuel tanks and thus the tank arrangements for deep-sea shipping is more feasible for am-
are flexible and simple to apply. Methanol is monia and methanol than for hydrogen. Strong
mildly toxic and must be handled carefully government support and strict local regulations
if spilled or leaked in confined spaces or on may make it feasible for some short-sea ship-
deck. ping applications. But the main role of hydro-
gen in shipping is expected by some to be as a
Ammonia building block for other fuels.

Exploration of ammonia as a fuel is progress- Hydrogen used as fuel can be stored in the
ing fast. Some countries are lending strong storage tank in a cryogenic liquefied state
backing to ammonia as a fuel of the future. (-253 C), requiring approx. four times (4x)lvi
While the current ammonia supply is fossil the volume of fuel tank capacity compared to
based it would have to be produced in an en- marine diesel oil to maintain the same vessel
vironmentally sustainable way with synthetic endurance. It can also be stored in a com-
hydrogen and nitrogen. Ammonia is toxic and pressed state with pressure of 350–700 bar, but
highly corrosive, making it challenging to han- then hydrogen requires up to ten times (10x)
dle. Cargo handling systems capable of han- the volume of fuel tank capacity compared to
dling ammonia have been existing for many marine diesel oil to maintain the same vessel
years, for use on liquified petroleum gas (LPG) endurance. However, a hydrogen-powered
carriers. The basic concept for fuel supply is fuel-cell motor is up to twice as energy efficient
like that for LNG. Ammonia fuel can be han- as a combustion engine, thereby halving the
dled in a stainless-steel version of an LNG fuel required storage volume and offsetting some of
gas supply system. Due to its lower energy the storage disadvantage.
density ammonia requires approximately four
times (4x) the volume of fuel tank capacity The current hydrogen production is largely
compared to marine diesel oil to maintain the fossil based. Making hydrogen clean requires
same vessel endurance. producing it in an environmentally sustainable
way i.e., by electrolysis of water to hydrogen
Ammonia has several other properties that are and oxygen by using renewable electricity. A
presently being investigated by engine manu- regulatory framework and class rules is needed
facturers. It ignites and burns poorly compared for the use of hydrogen as a marine fuel.

31
Shipbuilding
Within the shipbuilding value chain, several ship op-
timisation initiatives, such as hydrodynamics and au- Carbon capture and storage:
tonomous shipping, are being pushed by shipbuilders what is it?lvii
as contributors to the reduction of GHG emissions. Carbon capture and sequestration / storage
even though they show lower levels of impact than (CCS) is the process of capturing carbon
other categories of enablers they are ready-to-use en- dioxide (CO2) formed during power gen-
ablers that can contribute now. Every new generation eration and industrial processes before it
of ships is expected to be more fuel and emissions enters the atmosphere to reuse CO2 in pro-
efficient than the previous one. Achieving significant duction or industrial and other processes,
GHG reductions requires to include in the bundle of transport CO2 compressed into a fluid main-
enablers to be activated retrofitting and ship renewal. ly by pipelines / ships, and store CO2 into
The Yara Birkeland, for example, is the world’s first deep, underground geological formations
electric and autonomous short sea container ship. It for very long time (centuries or millennia).
has conducted its maiden voyage in November 2021 The aim is to prevent the release of CO2 or
and is expected to be put into service in 2022. Alter- capture it from air. The technologies used
native fuels need to be transported. Beginning 2022 fall into three categories, namely post-com-
the Suiso Frontier the world’s first liquid hydrogen bustion carbon capture which is the primary
(LH2) carrier left Australia with the first LH2 shipment method used in existing power plants, pre-
to arrive in Kobe in Japan on 25 February 2022. The combustion carbon capture which is largely
ship features a diesel-electric propulsion system. used in industrial processes, and oxy-fuel
combustion systems. CCS technologies can
Tests with scrubbersxxi that, in addition to filtering out capture almost all of the CO2 they produce
sulphur, capture carbon dioxide emissions onboard (some currently capture 90 or even 100 per-
ocean vessels and store it in so-called “CO2 batter- cent). Since CCS deployment is in its early
ies” are underway. This is a form of carbon capture stages of development, financial returns
and storage (CCS). In parallel, some carriers are ex- on CCS projects are riskier than mature
perimenting with wind support. Wind and solar pow- operations. Higher risk premiums and miti-
er might be a good fit for electric vehicle car carri- gating risk for investors is therefore vital for
ers. Concepts provided by the “circular economy” are incentivising investment and development
gaining popularity across the economy and building of CCS. Carbon capture is more likely eco-
recyclable ships from recycled materials which is mar- nomically viable when being combined with
ginal today may become prominent in the future with a utilisation process when the CO2 is used
significant impact on GHG reduction. to produce high-value chemicals or fuels.
Although 40 million metric tons of CO2 from
plants in operation or construction are cap-
tured and stored each year more research
and development is needed to optimise
technology design and integration in mari-
time shipping.

32
State of development of fuel Fuel reformer + PEM FC

cells for marine applications As the electrochemical reaction of fuel cells

occurs between hydrogen and oxidizing agents
pre-processing in the form of a fuel reformer
1. Available fuel cell technologies installed onboard is required when fuels other
Multiple fuel cell technologies are available – than hydrogen are used. There are require-
the most promising for marine use are Proton ments for hydrogen purity, especially for low
Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells and Solid temperature fuel cells. Low temperature fuel
Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) cells are very sensitive to CO. Otherwise, CO
clean-up processes are required.
1.1 Proton exchange membrane fuel cells
Fuel reformer technology for LT-PEMFC is avail-
PEM fuel cells can be split into Low Tempera- able for pre-processing of methanol and meth-
ture and High Temperature technology. If a fuel ane, while ammonia fuel reformer technology
reformer is added for pre-processing also other is still under development. For HT-PEMFC, fuel
fuels than hydrogen can be used. reforming technology only exist for methanol
pre-processing.
Low temperature PEM FC
1.2 Solid oxide fuel cells
The Low Temperature PEMFC (LT-PEMFC)
solution allows flexible and safe operation and The basic components of a Solid Oxide Fuel
a quick start-up with less stringent material Cell (SOFC) module consist of a SOFC stack,
requirements. However, low temperature also a fuel supply unit, an air supply unit, a reforming
leads to a lack of waste heat recovery options unit, an after combustor and possibly a waste
and a complex system for water management. heat recovery (WHR) unit, as well as several
In addition, the catalysts can be poisoned by auxiliary elements serving regulation, measure-
carbon monoxide (CO) and sulphur (S) when no ment, safety, and control functions. Although the
pure hydrogen is used. development of SOFC for marine use is ongo-
ing, no commercial products are available yet.
High temperature PEM FC
SOFC is a very high temperature fuel cell. The
As indicated by the names the main difference SOFC operates at temperatures between 500-
between a High Temperature PEMFC (HT-PEM- 1000°C. The SOFC shows the same flexibility
FC) and a LT-PEMFC is the operating tem- towards fuels as internal combustion engines
perature. The HT-PEMFC can operate at tem- (ICEs), being able to use hydrogen, methanol,
peratures up to 200°C by using a mineral acid and hydrocarbons. The reforming to syngas
electrolyte instead of a water based one. Re- (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) occurs within
action and fuel are the same as in the LT-PEM. the fuel cell. Ammonia SFOC for marine use are
The High Temperature PEM is less sensitive to under development, where direct thermal crack-
poisoning by CO and sulphur and has no need ing of ammonia into hydrogen and molecular
for a water management system. It is also pos- nitrogen (N2) occurs within the fuel cell.
sible to use the excess heat from the fuel cell
in a heat recovery system. A HT-PEMFC has a
lower power density and does not permit to cold
start it.

33
2. Fuel cell outlook are expected to be between 30,000 to 50,000
Technology maturity hours, after which the fuel cell stack has to be
While there is experience from using fuel cells replaced. The lifetime of a FC is strongly corre-
in marine applications and some of the PEM- lated to how it is used (fast load variations, etc)
FC products having type approval for marine and battery hybrids are always to be considered
use, there’s six order of magnitude difference of to balance peaks in load demand and to extend
experience in marine applications compared to the FC lifetime. The lifetime of an ICE is similar
the ICE. The installed base of fuel cells can be to the vessel lifetime (about 30 years, or about
measured in megawatts (MW), while the installed 200,000 hours), with periodical overhaul of main
base of ICE can be measured in terawatts (TW). components.

Power capacity Operability

The power demands for marine power systems Operability could be reflected by start-up time
range from hundreds of kilowatts (kW) up to and transient dynamic response. Considering
tens of MW. Currently, the maximum power out- the fuel cell stack, the start-up time ranges from
put of the currently applied marine fuel cells is a few seconds for a PEMFC to tens of minutes
in the region of a few hundreds of kW, while the for a SOFC since high temperature fuel cells
highest ICEs power output lies above 70 MW. need more time for stack and reformer pre-
The potential use of fuel cells within merchant heating. A long start-up time can be accepted
marine applications remains therefore limited in to some extent. Dynamic response character-
terms of power output today. istics reflect the response of fuel cell power
systems to external load changes. The transient
Safety response time ranges from seconds for PEM-
FC to several minutes for SOFC. The transient
The safety of fuel cell power systems depends response time of reforming systems is typically
primarily on the choice of fuel. Key considera- counted in minutes. Therefore, batteries are typ-
tions related are fuel density, flashpoint, au- ically required for reformers or SOFC systems
to-ignition temperature, flammability limits and to allow fasters start-up times or response times
toxicity. Different working scenarios including to sudden load changes. However, this should
bunkering, onboard storage, daily service, and not be an major drawback.
emergency response should be covered when
assessing and managing risks. The same safety Efficiency
aspects apply to ICE as power source.
ICE has an energy efficiency of approx. 35–50%
Reliability FCs are typically having 40–60% energy effi-
ciency, depending on the fuel cell technology.
Assessing the reliability of fuel cell power sys- There are two aspects that are factored into the
tems is limited at this point due to lack of ex- system design. Firstly, the efficiency of FCs is
perience in a maritime environment. Pilot degrading slightly over the lifetime, typically be-
installations are being carried out to verify the fa- ing around 10% lower at end-of-life compared to
vourable assumptions in terms of overall system the beginning-of-life. Secondly, the highest ef-
reliability coming from the use in other industries. ficiency of a fuel cell system is achieved at low
loads, typically below 25% and the lowest effi-
Lifetime ciency at highest load, while the ICE is having
the lowest efficiency at lowest load and the best
The lifetime of a fuel cell refers to the lifetime efficiency at high loads, typically above 75%.
of the fuel cell stack. The lifetimes of fuel cells This is a known challenge but no real constraint.

34
Seaports Regulation
Ports provide measures like clean fuel storage and Regulations are affecting all three maritime value
bunkering or onshore power supply, which improves chains. It is a major enabler. The introduction of a
local air quality but is considered to have low impact carbon pricing system is becoming widely accepted
on overall maritime industry decarbonisation. On- and is considered to have the biggest long-term im-
shore power supply is becoming a regulatory require- pact on encouraging the maritime transition. The mar-
ment for example in the EU at a time when green ket-based mechanism (MBM) is expected to gradually
electricity generation cannot meet demand and elec- narrow and ultimately close the price gap between
trical infrastructure is reaching its limits. Fuel storage fossil and alternative fuels.
facilities and bunkering equipment at ports are getting
ramped up. Some seaports like Singapore, Rotter- Indexes, such as Energy Efficiency Design Index
dam and Hamburg see themselves as future green (EEDI) and Energy Efficiency eXisting Ship Index
energy hubslviii. They see the opportunity and position (EEXI), and Carbon Intensity Index (CII) are guiding
themselves as important actors in the renewable (ma- ship optimisation efforts but are not being considered
rine) fuel value chain. having a huge impact on GHG reduction. A carbon
tracker that allows to visualise the GHG emissions
of every ship for the industry and even the general
Operations
public could help to show status and progress of de-
Within the maritime operational value chain, enablers carbonisation in shipping. The obligation to reduce
that enhance synchronisation between ports and the carbon content in fuels is considered as a means
ships, and between ports and hinterland transport to drive decarbonisation and ramp-up the supply of
vehicles are accepted but show rather limited impact alternative fuels.
on CO2 reduction. Just-in-time arrivalslix to improve
the fluidity of transport and reduce the carbon foot-
print is mature in concept and in the experimentation
stage but requires changing historic contracts. Alter-
ing the contracts, which are among the largest bar-
riers in adopting energy efficiency in operations has
turned out to be extremely challenging. Commercial
structures with asymmetric incentives are an imped-
iment to decarbonisation as they do not incentivise
everyone in the business model to save fuel and cut

E
GHG emissions. This slows down capital-intense pro-
jects as well as adoption of advanced weather routing
which is a quick win for owners / operators / charter-
AT I V
ers that has been available for some time and is ready
DI C
to be scaled. Also speed optimisation which contrib-
utes to reducing CO2 is not a new topic, but advanced
digital solutions and new data sharing practices can
IN
INDICAT
lift this enabler to new heights.

Financing
More attractive financing can be made available for
projects that support shipping decarbonisation. Green
innovation R&D funds are seen as a necessary in-
strument to kick-start innovation / implementation and
bridge financing gaps where needed. Figure 15: Harvey ball assessment of the 37
enablers pursued in the study

INDICATIVE
35
Not all enablers are available or available at the right Summary of the enabler analysis
price (figure 15). The gap can be closed through ramp- Figure 16 gives a high-level picture of the world of
ing up supply and demand, and temporarily bridging maritime decarbonisation now and in 2030 consid-
price gaps through financial mechanisms. An open ering the three maritime transition scenarios. The
and collaborative world supports actors in their de- graphs show usable decarbonisation enablers, which
carbonisation efforts. Decarbonisation-friendly regu- are ready, available, and affordable at scale, and ena-
lation and R&D funds accelerate the developments. blers that are usable within limits, because of a short-
Multiplicity emerged as a critical component for de- age of supply (see appendix 8). Usable at scale is
carbonisation in shipping: multi-fuels, multi-fuel ship assumed when readiness, availability, and financial
engines, and flexible operational models are core to viability of an enabler is assessed 3 or 4. Usable with-
manoeuvring the multi-layered landscape of the mar- in limits is assumed when the readiness and financial
itime industry and the volatile nature of our world. In viability of an enabler is assessed 3 or 4 but the avail-
such an environment, flexibility including upgradable ability scores below 3.
ship engines and the possibility to retrofit entire ships
turns out to be a considerable risk mitigator. A price
on carbon can contribute to support such efforts. Ap-
pendix 8 covers what can be used now and in 2030
at scale or within limits.

Usable decarbonisation enablers now and in 2030 given

the maritime transition scenarios

Usable NOW Usable in 2030 in a Storms scenario

# of enablers
# of enablers within category
within category Usable NOW Usable in 2030 in a Storms scenario
# of enablers
# of enablers within category
within category
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
X…

X…
s

ls
ns

ity
s

es
ns

ity
s

er
s

ls
ce
el

re
em
cin

o-

io

ce
el
ro

cin

o-

tio

ro
ti o

ar

ur
ti o
fu

ar
su

at
ur

fu
r-t

nt

ur

r-t
an

nt
st

po
an

sa
ul
ti -

as
ul
la

ti -
a

la
so

we

co

so
sy

we

co
rc

i
Fin

tim
gu

rc

e
ul

Fin
gu

tim
ul

el
m

m
er

Ci

er
er

Ci
ns
po
M

fu

ns
Re

po
M

Re
op
rt
ow

op
rt
ow
w

io

ti -

io
n
Po

Po

n
po

at
ee

ip

at
ul
p

ee

ip
p
er
Sh

er
er

Sh
er
el

Gr

Gr
Op
h

Op
fu

h
Ot

Ot
ti -
ul
M

Usable at scale Usable within limits

Usable at scale Usable within limits

Usable in 2030 in a Swells scenario

# of enablers
Usable in 2030 in a Clean Sky
Usable in 2030 in a Clear Sky scenario
within category
Usable in 2030 in a Swells scenario
# of enablers
# of enablers within category
within category # of enablers within category scenario
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
X…

X…
s

ls
ns

ity
s

s
s

es
ity
s

er
s

ls
ns

g
re
ce
el

em

ce
el
cin

o-

io

cin

o-
ro

tio

ro
ti o

ur
ti o
ar

ar
fu

fu
su

at
ur

r-t

ur

r-t
nt

nt
po
an

st

sa
an

as
ul

ul
ti -

ti -
la

la
a
so

so
we

co

we
sy

co
i

i
rc

rc
Fin

e
tim
gu

Fin

tim
gu
ul

ul

el
m

m
er

Ci

er

Ci
er

ns
po
M

fu

ns
po
M
Re

Re
op

op
rt

rt
ow

ow
w

ti -
io

io
n
Po

Po

n
po

at

at
ul
ee

ip

ee

ip
p

p
er

er
Sh

Sh
er

er
el

Gr

Gr
Op

Op
h

h
fu

Ot
Ot

ti -
ul
M

Usable at scale Usable within limits

Usable at scale Usable within limits

Figure 16: Usable decarbonisation enablers now and in 2030 given the maritime transition scenarios

36
This report calls out five main observations. In June 2022, Members of the European Parliament
(EP) rejected proposals to include shipping in the EU
1. The enabler analysis shows that actors in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)lx. The current state
maritime industry can already today leverage a of decarbonisation and the direction the world is tak-
range of solutions to drive decarbonisation; with ing leaves those that wish to drive decarbonisation
some enablers having more and others less im- little choice. Stakeholders need to collaborate even
pact on GHG reduction. The frontrunners in the more to change the current slow decarbonisation
industry have already activated many of these trend of fragmentation. The private sector is in the
decarbonisation enablers. driver’s seat for decarbonisation and the industry can
achieve a lot regardless the external conditions.
2. An open and collaborative world in Swells and
Clear Sky is more favourable to decarbonisation
efforts than a siloed one with tensions between Irrespective of the direction the world may
the blocs. Speedy and impactful decarbonisation take, sooner or later the actors in the maritime
requires globalisation, more precisely joint effort. industry will activate their respective bundles of
decarbonisation enablers, either voluntarily or
3. A fragmented Storms-like global landscape will forced by regulators or external realities.
not bring about a lot of clean developments by
the end of the decade but some shifts across the
range of usable enablers will occur.

4. A world that makes decarbonisation its priority is

the most favourable as this significantly acceler-
ates the clean innovation and adoption creating
new opportunities for growth and jobs.

5. The current geopolitical trend that puts focus

on food and security concerns does not favour
decarbonisation and will not bring shipping
anywhere close to its ambitions. Getting closer
to the ambitions requires even stronger decar-
bonisation efforts than those currently envisaged
in Clear Sky.

37
5. Understanding ecosystem
dynamics to execute collectively
Climate change has been caused collectively and Today, the maritime industry burns fuel that hard-
also requires a collective response with a shift in val- ly anybody else demands. Tomorrow, the sector will
ue capture and distribution to align incentives to act. compete for alternative power sources and fuels with
The maritime transition will not happen anytime soon other actors that requires green fuels. This creates
if costs and efforts are not spread equally. While the new competitive relations that drives prices up which
costs of decarbonisation are unavoidable, decarboni- will make it harder for each sector to reduce carbon
sation is also a huge opportunity. Costs for some par- dioxide emissions.
ties are revenues for others. Losses in some activities
are offset by gains in others. As an example, today the Other dynamics will unfold between shippers and car-
renewables sector creates many more jobs than the riers. The ecosystem of shippers consists of a diverse
oil and gas industry and renewable jobs are expected set of players spanning different industries and which
to grow fivefold globally by 2050xxii. At a “macro” lev- depends on the maritime industry to reduce the ship-
el, the overall drag of decarbonisation on economic pers’ scope 3 CO2 emissions. Between different modes
development has been proven minimal and, in any of transport, beside the competition on green sources
case, negative effects are likely to be offset by avoid- of power also new synergies may emerge as, for ex-
ed costs from climate change. The challenges are not ample, trucks can get their own clean fuel at seaports.
“macro” but “micro”, i.e., the alignment of incentives
for action by individual parties that achieve a collec- These new dynamics drive the need to expand the
tively desired outcome as the detriment of their busi- scope of decarbonisation beyond the cluster of mari-
ness or financial performance. time value chains to a larger decarbonisation ecosys-
tem (figure 17).

Interdependecies, tensions, and synergies between related value chains

Energy generation, Industrial

distribution, and production
consuming value value chains
chains
Marine Fuel Shipbuilding
Value Chain Value Chain
(from well to bunker) (from build to reuse)

Maritime Operational Value Chain

(from port to port) (fuels and ships in use)

Trade and
transport, global
Figure 17: The maritime sector in supply chains
relation to other industries

38
The dynamics within the larger decarbonisation sys- The ship owners / operators / charterers are core to
tem are shaped by the influence actors can exert on the decarbonisation of the maritime industry, and they
other members of the ecosystem. can be instrumental as aggregators of the required
parties to drive the maritime transition.
An important player in the maritime ecosystem is the
IMO. The IMO applies an inclusive approach so that
every signed-up member is included. The advantage Power dynamics in the maritime
is that once consensus is reached, every IMO member industry, in an energy production and
who is signatory to the agreed regulation is obliged to societal context
execute on the decisions made. The downside is that
the process is long, with the pace determined by the
slowest movers. Fast alignment and decision-making
are hard to achieve when dealing with a challenging
topic in a complex multi-sector industry and a volatile
Shippers
and uncertain world. The inclusive approach of the BCOs
IMO creates tensions with those who wish to decar- Energy
Regulators
bonise quickly. companies

Therefore, private and public sector pioneers are

taking initiative to give impetus and set direction and
standards themselves, by means of investments in
decarbonisation enablers and low-carbon and zero
Financial Ship owners / Ports
emissions partnerships. This creates positive energy
institutions Operators /
and potentially makes other major players take initi- Charterers
ative too.

Beyond the shippers that pay for the maritime ship-

ping services and that can make their voices heard,
ship owners / operators / charterers are also key influ- Power system Technology
encers as they can provide direction to fuel manufac- manufacturers providers
turers, shipbuilders, seaports and technology provid-
ers. This can e.g., be observed from what one of the Shipbuilders
world’s largest shipping companies, Maersk, initiated
by announcing the order of methanol powered ships. Figure 18: Power dynamics in the maritime industry,
CMA CGM has in the meantime followed in the foot- in an energy production and societal context
steps of Maersk confirming orders of six 15,000 TEU
dual-fuel methanol-powered vessels. Seaports gener-
ally supply fuels that are requested by the charterers Ship owners / operators / charterers act within the
/ shipping companies, equipment providers manufac- frameworks set by the regulators and with a speed
ture what ship owners / operators / charterers demand determined by the support given by shippers like de-
(e.g. LNG ICEs), shipbuilders produce what suits and carbonisation premiums, length of contracts etc., and
supports the business model of their customers, and the public sector through incentives.
technology providers supply what is favoured by the
shipping companies and fuel producers (figure 18). Citizens also have their role to play. They can influ-
Energy company Proman has partnered with Stena to ence politicians to initiate supporting policies and
jointly develop a retrofit and supply solution, with an launch incentives to motivate fuel suppliers to ramp
aim to promote sustainable shipping through the use up alternative fuel production and ship owners / oper-
of methanol. Stena Bulk and Proman have together ators / charterers to order green ships. Governments
invested in five methanol-fuelled medium-range (MR) can guide and fund academia and research institutes
tankers, all of which will be built by GSI and delivered to focus on low-carbon and zero emissions research
by the end of 2023.xxiii and launch decarbonisation projects that foster col-
laboration across the ecosystem.

39
A critical mass of stakeholders supporting CO2 reduc- • The European Sustainable Shipping Forum
tion can put the industry on a path of accelerated de- (ESSF)xxxviii
carbonisation. • The Zero-Emission Shipping Missionxxxix

An alternative fuel that reaches 5% in the energy mix Ultimately, it is the coalition of the willing that will drive
can trigger a transition. the change and reap many of the benefits available
from early positioning. Successful decarbonisation
Driving decarbonisation across the maritime indus- will be brought about by partnerships across the mar-
try requires bringing actors in the self-organising eco- itime ecosystem (see figure 19 for the identification of
system of shipping closer together for enhanced key players in the different value chains).
coordination and consolidation of resources. For ex-
ample, developed in 2013, port call synchronization Such a coalition can contribute to making “carbon-neu-
empowered by Port Collaborative Decision Making trality-as-a-service” the new normal and show what
(PortCDM),xxiv brought shared situational awareness works and what not through scale-up projects.
among participants, followed by the just-in-time arrival
initiatives by IMO,xxv and virtual arrival by BIMCO.xxvi Pilots and demonstration projects will help the industry
These developments enhance synchronising capabili- to understand the implications of using alternative ma-
ties that reduce GHG emissions, costs, and delays. Just- rine fuels and other decarbonisation technologies and
in-time port calls and route optimisation have been ac- solutions. Lessons from the introduction of LNG as (still
knowledged as two important enablers which can pave limited in share) interim fuel in the shipping industry or
the way to move from synchronisation based on physi- the rise of renewable wind energy sector will also be
cal presence to virtual tickets and slot management.xxvii helpful to establish a transition roadmap. As a refer-
The concepts have been stress-tested, as driven by the ence, it took 15 years to set up the LNG infrastructure
appointment economyxxviii in many other sectors. How- in shipping. The coalition could establish decarbonisa-
ever, so far, digital enablers have a slow uptake, since tion funds to provide financing for shared activities, and
the digital maturity of seaports is lowxxix, and the distribut- to cover common needs and other support measures,
ed nature of shipping does not encourage the necessary including extending help to less developed countries
collaboration to change the situation rapidly. that have concrete decarbonisation plans.

Nevertheless, collaboration in the field of decarbonisa- In 2019, the Marine Environmental Protection Com-
tion is increasing. One example is the strategic partner- mittee (MEPC) discussed an industry-led proposal for
shipxxx of A.P. Moller – Maersk, CIMC ENRIC, Europe- the establishment of a non-governmental Internation-
an Energy, Green Technology Bank, Orsted, Proman, al Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB)
and WasteFuel to boost the global production capacity and related fundxl. In 2021, a group of governments
of green methanol with the intent of sourcing at least (Georgia, Greece, Japan, Liberia, Malta, Nigeria, Pa-
730,000 tonnes per year by the end of 2025. Other lau, Singapore, and Switzerland) that are controlling
examples of collective efforts in research, experimen- a major share of global shipping tonnage have sub-
tation, implementation, and uptake of decarbonisation mitted a proposal, strongly supported by the shipping
solutions in the maritime sector are orchestrated by the industry, to the IMO to establish a $5 billion research
following collaborative initiatives: fund, called International Maritime Research Fund
(IMRF). A modified proposal expanded the scope to
• Global Maritime Forumxxxi with the Getting to Zero not only accelerate the development of zero-carbon
Coalition,xxxii technologies and fuels but also support the maritime
• Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonization decarbonisation efforts of developing nations. xli In
(GCMD),xxxiii June 2022, at MEPC 78 there was little discussion on
• Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon the IMRB concept, and the R&D fund was rejected
Shipping,xxxiv by governments.xlii ”The signal this sends means that
• Blue Sky Maritime Coalition,xxxv and the financial risk associated with green investment
• IMO’s initiative on Coordinated Actions to Reduce will remain high, slowing down efforts to switch to
Emissions from Shipping (IMO CARESxxxvi) zero-carbon fuels as soon as possible,” commented
• Cargo Owners for Zero Emissions Vessels (coZEV)xxxvii Guy Platten, International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)
• Some private-public partnerships launched, such as: Secretary General.xliii The IMO has still the possibility

40
to make use of the Fund’s proposed regulatory archi- determine to a large extent its destiny independently.
tecture to support a future global carbon levy on CO2 A strong coalition of the willing can overcome barriers
emissions, to close the price gap with future zero-car- illustrated by the Storms scenario; shortages, bottle-
bon fuels and provide funds to help the transition of necks and backlashes illustrated in Swells; and accel-
the maritime sector to net zero by 2050.xliv erate the positive outcomes highlighted in Clear Sky
which, otherwise, still falls short of industry aspirations.
The coalition of the willing can also advise on the
prioritisation of decarbonisation efforts across the Every huge success has started small. Often it is the
low-carbon and zero emissions fuel-constrained first steps that are the most challenging part. Transi-
global economy, for example answering questions tion pioneers can take up that responsibility and drive
like which industry should be prioritised for bio-fuels coalition building and large-scale decarbonisation.
supply – shipping or aviation or other industries? But
the most important responsibility of the coalition is to Pushing boundaries positively should be a key objec-
drive innovation in the field of decarbonisation and the tive in all scenarios.
large-scale deployment of workable solutions.

Changing the context strengthens or weakens our abil- While recognising and complying with the anti-
ity to decarbonise the maritime industry. The members competitive requirements in shipping which
of the maritime decarbonisation ecosystem are not only creates a cost-optimisation culture there are
asked to develop, implement, and scale effective de- significant benefits in driving decarbonisation
carbonisation solutions alone and collectively but also together with other public and private players
to lobby for an open and collaborative world to create across clusters of value chains but also actors
the most favourable decarbonisation conditions possi- beyond the maritime ecosystem in interrelated
ble. The maritime industry is not at the mercy of indi- clusters, like suppliers of shipbuilding materials
vidual political decisions but can, as a global industry, or city governments.

Key players in the different value chains

Marine Fuel Value Chain Shipbuilding Value Chain

(from well to bunker) (from built to reuse)

Shipping
Energy Technology Technology Energy Ship Shipping
Ports companies
producers providers providers producers builders companies
moving fuel

Maritime Operational Value Chain

(from port to port (fuel and ships in use))

Shipping
Shipping Cargo Technology
companies Ports
companies owners providers
moving fuel

Figure 19: Key players in the different value chains

41
6. Do what you can do, and do it now
Seven key takeaways from this review can set the recycling capacities offered by consortia may help to
scene for deriving individual and collective decarbon- balance our effort across the cluster of maritime value
isation action in the maritime industry. chains in specific geographies.

Scenario thinking is a great tool to Flexibility is key; LCA and interim

solidify views, encourage alignment, steps / hybrids are critical
and frame robust decisions Expecting that we can harmonise the different ap-
The study work has shown that scenario thinking is proaches across the world and reach a similar stage
a powerful tool to frame a discussion and develop of development anywhere may be an illusion. Hence,
pathways towards a point far out in our future. This we need to prepare for a diverse and continuously
forms the basis for projecting the development of dif- changing world through flexibility in capabilities, fuels,
ferent drivers at waypoints along the timeline like the and regulations. Inland waterway and shortsea ship-
advancing maturity of technologies. This helps com- ping can run on power sources compared to those
panies to prioritise their investments and guide their used in deep-sea shipping. The maritime industry
partnership-building. needs flexible strategies that not only work across
the globe but also across different potential futures.
Modularity and upgradability are features of next gen-
All the scenario pathways developed
eration maritime decarbonisation solutions.
in the context of this study fail to
achieve IMO 2018 ambitions
Collaboration and alignment are
Even the most effective scenario doesn’t bring the
the most critical success factors
industry close to the 2018 IMO decarbonisation am-
bitions. This indicates that we need to rethink our Decarbonisation is a Goliath task that requires a lot
approach to maritime decarbonisation. The long ho- of innovation like Bill Gates writes in How to avoid a
rizons, lead times and life cycles of ships requires climate disaster (2021). “Innovation is not just a matter
decisions early on and a diligent follow-through to en- of inventing a new machine; it’s also coming up with
sure that targets are met. We need to increase our new approaches to business models, supply chains,
investments in research, development, and pilot ac- markets and policies.” Only this level of commitment
tivities; ramp up the alternative fuel production capac- and innovation will enable the necessary unprece-
ity; drive continuous improvements in ship and engine dented alignment not only across the maritime sector
design; and improve the adoption of non-fuel related but across a much larger decarbonisation ecosystem.
decarbonisation measures in ship operations. This is necessary because we need to align our under-
standing and activities across interrelated systems of
systems. This will not happen through an invisible hand
The appreciation of full value chains
or meta-level authority but through willing parties that
and enablers is central to decarbonisation
constantly exchange information and best practices,
The gaps in the current decarbonisation value chain, jointly conduct experiments, and develop new offers.
particularly the lack of alternative fuels, indicate that Within the maritime industry, this requires that while
it is the cluster of critical maritime value chains that competing in commercial business matters companies
needs to be decarbonised, ideally in unison. This and countries collaborate in decarbonisation matters.
requires new forms of alignment, collaboration,
and partnerships. But we have seen that this is not
Satisfying financial considerations
enough. We need to look at the areas where clus-
is of utmost importance
ters overlap and create competitive, cooperative, or
synergetic relations between different stakeholders The private sector is indispensable for the transition.
calling for a cross-industry cross-cluster alignment. Financial returns and growth in revenues and prof-
Shipping corridor solutions, including alternative en- its are the core interests of business and should sig-
ergy production, bunkering facilities, green ships, and nal successful contributions of business to broader

42
society. The better we can satisfy the financial consid-
erations of the world, the faster sails the decarbonisa-
tion ship. At the least, the competitive position should
remain unchanged. Of course, there are nuances, but A decarbonisation playbook
no standard business will drive itself voluntarily into
bankruptcy. This reality has been dominating the dis- This playbook summarises key steps in
cussion about the market-based mechanism (MBM) the processes to plan and drive your
in the industry which recently has taken a positive decarbonization efforts whether you are in
turn. Without financial mechanisms and incentives the public or private sector.
like emissions trading, emissions-related levies and
emissions-offsetting, decarbonisation will remain an
uphill battle that lacks traction. 1. Create a multi-functional multi-stake-
holder expert and action group to drive
knowledge-building, planning and exe-
Don’t wait for ideal solutions / regulation
cution
or till an open world is re-emerging
The position of many regulators is clear. They are very 2. Apply scenario thinking to detail and
hesitant to prescribe any single decarbonisation solu- test the robustness of your decarbon-
tion like a particular fuel. But business does not need isation vision and strategy with long-
to wait for the regulator to make progress. Any global term goals and early objectives
industry can align around key principles and lobby their
governments around the world to support their chosen 3. Map out the relevant cluster of inde-
directions like a net zero by 2050 ambition or a more pendent value chains to be decarbon-
synchronised flow of transport. This are the signals ized which goes beyond companies’
some governments will pick up to craft supporting poli- and nations’ borders
cies. It is the private sector that is required to move first
so that the public sector can follow and not the other 4. Pick your most suitable decarbonisa-
way round. Regardless, key players in the industry will tion enablers that are under your con-
push for MBMs which will impact the economics of the trol or influence as key components of
shipping business to help the transition. Better to plan your decarbonisation action plan, with
to be ahead than to change under pressure. objectives per enabler derived from the
overall decarbonisation goals
These are seven foundations on which the recom-
mendations for decisionmakers in the public and pri- 5. Map relevant relationships / interde-
vate sector are based. This report should not only pendencies across the cluster of critical
be seen as a guide and knowledge-builder but also maritime value chains, and between
a springboard from which lots of other thoughts and the maritime cluster and other interre-
concepts can be derived. An example is a recent arti- lated clusters, and manage stakeholder
cle released by UNCTAD,xlv which puts the emphasis dynamics to drive decarbonisation
on a step-by-step approach to drive decarbonisation
in shipping. Furthermore, throughout the current ex- 6. Continuously record major takeaways
ercise, the structure of a playbook has emerged that from your (collective) decarbonisation
can help actors in the public and private sector to plan effort to expand your knowledge base
and drive their decarbonisation efforts. for next actions

7. Regularly formulate recommendations

Even in the fastest decarbonisation scenario and calls to actions, and leverage part-
considered, the current state-of-play of ena-
nerships and coalitions to do what you
blers, and the progress anticipated indicates
that a move on to the front foot now is not only cannot do alone.
a non-regret strategy for all key actors, but an
indispensable step.

43
7. Driving the maritime transition:
Recommendations and call to action
This study has yielded a long list of suggestions which
Recommendation #2: The maritime
can be found in appendix 9. Seven recommendations
industry to urge IMO member states’
that public and private stakeholders can act upon now
governments to support the proposed
were extracted and refined through a stress-testing
exercise performed by the expert group included in
“zero by 2050” plan and and follow
the project and members of the Freight and Logis- through the current roadmaps with
tics Leaders’ Forum (F&L) in May 2022. At an F&L detailed targets
meeting in Luxembourg the importance of the rec-
ommendation was assessed through answers to un- Underlying finding: All developed scenario path-
derlying questions on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 ways show that we don’t get anywhere near the 2018
(highest). The result in number of votes is indicated IMO decarbonisation ambitions, and yet indicate the
in diagrams associated with the individual seven rec- potential competitive and commercial advantages
ommendations. from acceleration

Conclusion: We need a stronger ambition and more

Recommendation #1: Build scenarios
aggressive pathway based on accurate CO2 calcula-
to stress-test current decarbonisation
tion and monitoring
strategies per value chain and across
clusters Stress-test poll #2: The maritime
Stress-test industry to maritime
poll #2: The urge IMOindustry
member states’
to urge
IMO member states’ governments to support
Underlying finding: Scenario thinking, and their governments to support the proposed
the proposed “zero by 2050” plan and follow
sharing helps to manage risks for example to avoid % of total #
through the “zero by 2050”
current planwith
roadmaps anddetailed
follow the
of responses
stranded assets and develop understanding across current
targets roadmaps
(104 votes)through with
the cluster of maritime value chains of different path-
detailed targets (104 responses)
ways to the future and to outline their implications for % of total # of responses

decarbonisation 60 %

Conclusion: We can leverage the strategic context 40 %

which the different scenarios provide

20 %

Stress-test poll #1: Build scenarios to

Stress-test poll #1: Build scenarios to stress-test 0%
% current stress-test current
of total # decarbonisation decarbonisation
strategies per value 1 2 3 4 5 Grading
of responses strategies
chain and per value
across clusters chain
(129 and across
votes) Grading

% of total # of responses
clusters (129 responses)
60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0%
1 2 3 4 5 Grading
Grading

44
 Stress-test poll #4: Every actor and
Recommendation #3: Establish cross- Stress-test poll sector in theactor
#4: Every industry needsinto
and sector
the industry needs to identify and focus on
identify and focus on its relevant
value chain coordination, e.g., through its relevant enablers across their respective
partnerships and zero-emission corridors % of total # enablers across their respective value
value chains to achieve company, industry, and
of responses
/ networks chainsmilestones
country to achieve(113
company,
votes) industry,
and country milestones (113…
Underlying finding: We face bottlenecks and gaps in % of total # of responses

decarbonisation across interdependent value chains, 60 %

e.g., we have dual-fuel engines but not enough alter-
native fuel 40 %

20 %
Conclusion: We need a holistic approach to decar-
bonisation and a cluster view on value chains of fuel,
0%
shipbuilding, and operations 1 2 3 4 5 Grading
Stress-test poll #3: Establish cross- Grading

value chain coordination, e.g.,

Stress-test poll #3: Establish cross-value chain
% coordination,
of total # through partnerships
e.g., through and zero-
partnerships and Recommendation #5: Create a global
of responses
zero-emission emission
corridorscorridors / networks
/ networks (110 votes) public-private coalition of the willing
% of total # of responses
(110 responses) to identify / activate scalable enablers
60 %
across all chains
50 %
Underlying finding: Given all circumstances regula-
40 % tors are ill-prepared to decide or guide the maritime
30 % sector in respect to what enablers to activate along
20 % and across the chains
10 %
0%
Conclusion: Leading players in the industry need to
1 2 3 4 5 take initiative and show what works and what doesn’t
Grading
Grading so that other public and private actors are better in-
formed for their own decisions; but what works for one
may not work for others
Recommendation #4: Every actor and
sector in the industry needs to identify Stress-test poll #5: Create a global
Stress-test poll #5: Create a global public-private
and focus on its relevant enablers coalition
% of total #
public-private
of the willing tocoalition
identify / of the willing
activate
across their respective value chains to scalable to identify
of responses enablers / activate
across scalable
all chains enablers
(108 votes)
achieve company, industry, and country % of total # of responses
across all chains (108 responses)
milestones
60 %

50 %
Underlying finding: There is no single silver bullet,
however this is not a curse but a cure in our diverse 40 %
world in different stages of development 30 %

20 %
Conclusion: We need to remain flexible and develop
the “37 enablers” for different cases and sustainable 10 %
profitability 0%
1 2 3 4 5 Grading
Grading

45
 Stress-test poll #7: Act now! In our
Stress-test poll #7: Act now! In our self-interest to
Recommendation #6: Establish % ofavoid
self-interest to avoid exponential
total # exponential decarbonisation costs
sufficient, transparent, and predictable of responses costs/damage
(110 votes)
financing and pricing mechanisms, like (110 responses )
% of total # of responses
a levy on high carbon marine fuels and
60 %
subsidies for low carbon solutions
50 %

40 %
Underlying finding: Making decarbonisation in the
30 %
maritime industry work requires pathways that are fi-
nancially incentivised and viable across all chains 20 %

10 %
Conclusion: We need find ways to trigger and fi-
0%
nance the change
1 2 3 4 5 Grading
Stress-test poll #6: Establish sufficient, Grading

transparent,
Stress-test and predictable
poll #6: Establish sufficient,financing
transparent, and pricing mechanisms, like and
and predictable financing a levy on
pricing mechanisms, like a levy on high carbon
% of total # high carbon marine fuels and subsidies
Call to action
marine fuels and subsidies for low carbon
of responses
for low
solutions (105carbon
votes) solution Stress-testing has shown strong support for all rec-
(105 responses) ommendations. This appreciation of the approach
% of total # of responses
and recommendations by a representative group of
60 % experts of the industry ecosystem makes the work
a strong case for escalating actions and atten-
40 % tion immediately. The frameworks applied and out-
comes achieved have shown that scenario thinking,
20 %
and the fundamental value-chain / decarbonisation
enabler / stakeholder dynamics concept ensure a
0%
1 2 3 4 5 structured, holistic, and balanced approach to decar-
Grading
Grading bonisation.

Recommendation #7: Act now! In This study provides the framework for
our self-interest to avoid exponential practical structural collaborative action
decarbonisation costs now, which is the only way to ensure that
the maritime industry aligns with the Paris
Underlying finding: Many decarbonisation enablers agreement and exceeds the IMO 2018
are ready to use, and decarbonising shipping is a ambitions.
complex and costly task that will become more costly  
if further action is delayed

Conclusion: We can already activate a range of de-

carbonisation enablers across the maritime value
chains and accelerate developments that are in the
broader self-interest of all stakeholders

46
Table of appendices

Appendix 1: Applied methodology

Appendix 2: Maritime Transition Scenarios

Appendix 3: Identified enablers and their characteristics

Appendix 4: Scoring (Harvey balls) of general enablers

Appendix 5: Arguments for the assessment of the general enablers

Appendix 6: Assessment (Harvey balls) of dynamic enablers

Appendix 7: Arguments for the assessment of the dynamic enablers

Appendix 8: Usable enablers now and per scenario in 2030

Appendix 9: Long list of suggestions

Appendix 10: Initiator, authors, and contributors

47
Appendix 1: Applied methodology

A series of discussions, precisely four workshops, potential partnerships or coalitions across the three
17 interviews, and 1 stress-testing exercise enabled maritime value chains as the basis for developing rec-
three maritime transition scenarios to be outlined; de- ommendations for decision-makers in the public and
fined a cluster of three key maritime value chains as private sector.
the scope of decarbonisation; identified, assessed,
and positioned 37 decarbonisation enablers in this The list of decarbonisation enablers and values has
value chain cluster; expanded the scope of decarbon- been anchored in theory, statements, and assess-
isation to a larger system of interdependent clusters; ments from the industry. The different enablers iden-
and extracted seven key takeaways, seven recom- tified during the project can be found in section 4 and
mendations, and a call to action. The structural flow appendix 3. The assumptions for the assessment are
of the exercise is outlined in the figure below. listed in appendix 5 and 7 and the outcome of the as-
sessment is visually illustrated in Harvey ball tables
Building on the need for building holistic and detailed depicted in appendix 3 and 6.
knowledge about decarbonisation in the maritime
ecosystem (see section 1 of the report), three Shell Driving change effectively requires understanding
scenarios outlining different futures with different pri- the power dynamics across the cluster – who leads,
orities: 1- wealth first (Waves), 2- security first (Is- who follows, or who may be an aggregator that brings
lands), and 3- health first (Sky 1.5) helped to kick-off everyone together. Furthermore, the maritime clus-
and frame the discussions and were expanded into ter of key value chains needs to be expanded and
three maritime transition scenarios dubbed: 1- Swells, connected with interrelated other clusters like other
building on Waves, 2- Storms, expanding Islands, and difficult to abate industries, suppliers of steel for ship-
3- Clear Sky, derived from Sky 1.5 (section 2). The building, and the shippers / beneficial cargo owners
maritime transition scenarios contain different path- (BCOs), to capture the entire stakeholder dynamics
ways towards a zero CO2 emission maritime sector. (section 5). These dynamics illustrate interdependen-
cies, tensions, and potential partnerships or coalitions
As scope of decarbonisation, three value chains were across the system.
defined and clustered: 1- the marine fuel value chain,
2- the shipbuilding value chain, and 3- the maritime Considering scenarios, scope, enablers, and stake-
operational value chain (section 3). Ideally, these val- holder dynamics results in seven key takeaways (sec-
ue chains are approached each in their entirety, and tion 6) driving seven concrete recommendations for
the three in parallel, to avoid decarbonisation bottle- decision-makers in the public and private sector and a
necks. call to action to take this report from concept to action
(section 7). The crucial output of the process is this
The three value chains form a cluster with specific and call to action and the recommendations for different
shared / connecting decarbonisation enablers, like al- stakeholders on how to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)
ternative fuels, hydrodynamics, and just-in-time arriv- emissions.
als (section 4). These enablers were assessed (grade
0 to 4) based on three more general enabler-specific
criteria: 1- impact on CO2 reduction, 2- ease of exe-
cution, and 3- acceptance across stakeholders, and
three more dynamic scenario-reliant factors: 1- read-
iness of the solution (now and in 2030), 2- availability
/ adoption (now and in 2030) and 3- financial viability
(now and in 2030). How these enablers evolve over
time depends on the specific scenario. The horizon
for action was defined as 2030, and the focus of as-
sessment is primarily on actions that can be taken
or initiated in that timeframe. These dynamics inform

48
 Interviews with
contributors
(Generic) (Shell) scenarios Maritime ecosystem
Workshop #2
on wealth first, security first logic and concerns
or health first

Workshop #1
Maritime Transition Cluster of critical maritime Enablers for
Scenarios value chains decarbonizing shipping

Workshop #3 General and dynamic

assessment of the enablers

Implications and dynamics for

stakeholders and value chains

1. Reviewed
Conclusions and by a control
key takeaways group

Stress testing 2. Reviewed

at the F&L Recommendations for private by the
event in and public decision-makers contributors
Luxemburg

Call to action

Commitment Dissemination

Figure: Structural flow of the exercise

A control panel of selected members of the expert By this work a robust framework has been developed
group supplemented by additional practitioners and using scenarios to set the scene and derive plausi-
academics has scrutinised / optimised the list of de- ble pathways towards decarbonisation of shipping,
carbonisation enablers and the assumptions behind adopting a perspective of interrelated clusters of val-
the scoring of the general and dynamic factors. The ue chains, and scoring different decarbonisation ena-
expert group and members of the Freight and Logis- blers. A next step could be that more quantitative data
tics Leaders’ Forum (F&L) (a neutral network of busi- is generated, for example to refine the qualitative as-
ness leaders focusing on freight logistics across the sessments through panels with diverse member from
supply chain and operating in all sectors and trans- all areas of the economic decarbonisation ecosystem.
port modes, based across Europe and globally) has This will bring more certainty to the conclusions to
stress-tested concepts, findings, and recommenda- create more confidence in the decisionmakers.
tions.

49
Appendix 2: Maritime Transition Scenarios

Primary
topic Sub-topic Swells Storms Clear Sky
Macro- Storyline Economic shocks resulting The security crisis and The pandemic and Ukrain-
context in from the pandemic and the energy markets tightness ian shocks forced attention
“root” war in Ukraine shift govern- caused by geopolitics like to securing competitiveness
scenarios ments focus back on eco- the Ukraine war leads to and forge new alignments,
nomic growth and supply militarisation and nationalism on the energy transitions.
chains. grouped in regions.

Geopolitics West and China-centric A world of multiple blocs Pragmatic new alliances
world. Realpolitik allows Rus- and continuous tensions. are formed, e.g. with new
sia to come back as major NATO is strengthened, EU major resource holders for
commodity provider, initially is becoming (energy) se- the green energy transition.
via backdoors in the global curity focussed. U.S. and While frictions persist a new
markets. The Russian crisis China continue building up alignment around the fight
has been overcome through a their military capabilities against global challenges
frozen conflict at the Rus- and seek regional spheres is reached, in part to se-
sian boarder, like it was the of influence. Russia finds cure domestic competitive
case with Nagorno-Karab- itself weakened globally, but economic advantage. The
akh between Armenia and stronger locally and in Cen- global accord on climate
Azerbaijan or South Ossetia tral Asia. It is important as a and other important actions
in Georgia. commodity supplier. helps to avoid major decou-
pling. A new form of globali-
zation has emerged.

Global Rapid growth, as China and Higher interest rates, less Stable inflation, moder-
economy the West reach a tense mo- open with slower economic ate interest rates, decent
dus vivendi around economic growth compared to health growth, sanctions are re-
interests. or wealth scenarios. moved step-by-step.

Climate Climate action remains on the Fragmented internation- COP27, COP28… Attention
agenda, but realpolitik allows al cooperation, with less to climate policy ranks high
fossil fuels to grow initially, investments in renewables on the international agenda
which causes the need for required as growth and CO2 providing mechanisms that
accelerated costly action lat- emissions are slowing, but support the domestic in-
er-on, enabled by advanced which causes pent-up prob- dustrial interests of leading
technological progress. lems later. economies.

Scenarios In Swells, the initial response In Storms, governments In Clear Sky, the response
to the array of crises is to and societies generally de- to COVID-19 and the war
keep the economy going until cide to focus on the safety in Ukraine is to focus on
environmental pressures and well-being of their own reforming approaches rec-
force a radical change of population and seek nearby ognised as unsatisfactory,
course and drastic climate alliances to strengthen that building new competitive
actions – growth first. position - security first. strongholds – wellbeing first.

Self-interest is largely per- Nationalism and militarism Following the success of

ceived in financial terms, shift the world further away vaccines and the West-
and resilience is judged in from the post-war geopolit- ern unity during the war in
terms of economic strength. ical order. The invasion of Ukraine, there is deeper
Economic recovery is rapid, the Ukraine starting on 24 appreciation of the role of
although at the cost of in- February 2020 brought back alignments in addressing
vestments into environmen- elements of the reality that challenges more broadly – .
tal measures and the health prevailed before the fall of
system. the Berlin wall.

50
Primary
topic Sub-topic Swells Storms Clear Sky
There is a surge in the use of The poor suffer the most as both deliberately engineered
all types of energy, includ- commodity prices, espe- alignments and those simply
ing fossil fuels. The Rus- cially for wheat and energy emerging from common
sia-Ukraine crisis has re-fo- skyrocket, but the situation pressures and circumstanc-
cused the decarbonisation relaxes once the dust set- es. The new drive for energy
movement in the short term tles, helped further by slower and food security is com-
with Europe dashing ahead economic growth. There is bined with a commitment to
with reducing hydrocarbon an islands-mentality with speed up the green tran-
consumption, which is often resilience understood as sition in leading countries.
pushed aback elsewhere autonomy and self-sufficien- The U.S., China and other
continuing the heavy pro- cy. These internally focused technology-focused econ-
duction of fossil fuels. China recovery efforts have mixed omies in Asia and Europe
staying on its CO2 reduction results. There are frictions target the development of
course but the U.S. focus- in international trade and clean technologies as an
ing on fossil fuel exports to collaboration, so growth in economic and security goal
provide a counterbalance to the global economy begins that boosts domestic indus-
Russian supply. The apparent to slacken, and international trial and technological com-
economic success disguis- efforts to address the climate petitiveness. There is rapid
es a deeper story of growing challenge slow. The Paris and deep electrification
inflation, as interest rates are climate process unravels. and decarbonisation of the
kept low, feeding into social Nations focused on their own global economy, with growth
discontent and labour unrest. short-term (energy) security dominated by renewable
The public begins to react concerns remain depend- resources. Global demand
massively to more frequent ent on fossil energy for a for coal and oil peak in the
and more extreme weath- prolonged period, and global 2020s, and natural gas in
er events. From an energy emissions decline only slow- the 2030s. In the econom-
perspective, there is then a ly. Extreme weather events ic sectors that are harder
societal and political dou- eventually cause disruption to abate, liquid and gase-
bling down to tackle climate and suffering, yet the ‘blame’ ous fuels are progressively
change which forces rapid for this is largely placed on decarbonised – sometimes
policy-driven reductions in ‘others’ rather than em- head over heels – through
fossil fuel use. The global braced in domestic politics. biofuels, hydrogen, CCR[S],
use of coal and oil peaks in Although the normal course with more focus on recycling
the 2030s, and natural gas of equipment and infrastruc- carbon than its storage. The
not long afterwards. Mov- ture replacement and the circular economy is emerg-
ing quickly and accelerating deployment of cleaner tech- ing also encroaching the
with the decline in costs, nologies bring progress but maritime industry through
starting later than required does not lead to a net-zero recyclable ships. Leading
to meet the goal of the Paris economy. The world over- economies achieve the goal
Agreement, global society shoots the timeline and does of net-zero by 2050, sup-
achieves an energy system not achieve the goal of the porting less developed na-
with net-zero emissions even- Paris agreement – late and tions. The goal of the Paris
tually – late but accelerated slow decarbonisation leading Accord is met – accelerated
decarbonisation to adaptation. decarbonisation now.

Maritime Scenarios In Swells, behaviour within In Storms, trade in commodi- In Clear Sky, the acceler-
sector impacts the maritime industry reverts ties as well as manufactured ated pressure on national
largely to pre-pandemic dy- goods is depressed causing and international decar-
namics. Developments are slowing growth in the global bonisation commitments,
driven by multiple entrepre- economy and an increased and steady technological
neurial individual agents focus on inter-regional progress and investment
with limited new collabora- self-sufficiency. The slug- across all sectors of the
tion beyond profit-protecting gish global trade outlook and economy, encourages and
arrangements. Despite the focus on domestic econo- is reflected in the balancing
global disruption caused by mies adds friction to access- across key value chains
the Russia-Ukraine crisis ing capital for investment in (fuel, ship, operations) of
economic growth and trade greener technologies. the maritime sector.
volumes

51
Primary
topic Sub-topic Swells Storms Clear Sky
provide a favourable context There is a heterogenous Developments take place
for the industry that provides landscape in regulation and across all areas of the
some resilience in subse- a drift away from IMO legis- logistics industries, with
quent backlashes against lation. The gaps across fuel, improved alignments be-
fossil fuels. Perceived uncer- ship and operations supply tween sea and land con-
tainty about the main decar- chains widen. Different fuel nections. Already in the
bonisation technologies and types and standards emerge 2020s, alignments strength-
availability of alternative fuels as preferred developments in en significantly compared
prevail until the mid-2030s different countries and parts to the past, with EU and
creating a certain level of of the world, making efficient IMO, and China and U.S.
hesitance in respect to green international operations a approaches to climate ac-
investments. Advances in challenge. Japan, Califor- tion converging. There is a
digitalisation are affordable nia, the Nordics and Europe changed approach to view-
and boost efficiency across as a whole drive decarbon- ing anti-competitive prin-
the industry and broader isation rapidly compared ciples in the industry, with
logistical operations. Large to lagging North America, more public-private coop-
stakeholders originating from South America, South-East eration emerging, reflected
developed economies with Asia and the Middle East. in increasingly impactful
financial room to maneuver However, these differences global maritime coalitions.
invest continuously in greener enable some opportunities Establishing a level play-
approaches in advance of for arbitrage for instance ing field and mitigating the
growing anti-fossil regulation, through commodity price risk of stranded assets are
providing a starting point for differences for instance for the main motivators. These
less prosperous stakeholders LNG and new optimisation support the development
to adopt greener approach- opportunities like those en- of different ship types and
es when forced later. The abled by the Clydebank the sizes, driven by the require-
broader societal backlash declaration for zero-emis- ment for greener less-dense
provides some new opportu- sion corridors. While climate fuels which requires major
nities to the maritime sector turbulence is locked in over adaptations in design to
as other sectors are disrupted the next couple of decades ensure stability and safety.
and freight patterns change. in all scenarios, in Islands Changes in domestic waste
Marine value chains (main- the elevated emissions in management increase the
ly fuel, ship, operations) the later decades stokes supply of biofuels. Maritime
are partially balanced. The greater storms and sea-level decarbonisation technolo-
eventually rapid decarbonisa- rise affecting all ports and gy trade becomes a highly
tion brings new trade in light maritime operations. Trade lucrative segment. Trad-
weighting material to help patterns are significantly ing patterns adjust, with
drive efficiencies in mobili- affected as climate change some ports benefitting from
ty. Nevertheless, the knee- causes shifts, for example these or choosing to benefit
jerk policy changes hurt the agricultural activity moves through their investments
industry and force a period from water scarce areas to in energy production and
of uncertainty and very high water rich regions. The Arctic fueling infrastructure. New
capital investment in the route becomes viable. De- ships are increasingly made
2030s that prove beyond the carbonisation of inland and of recycled materials and
capacity of financially weaker short sea shipping progress- are also recyclable. As
players to respond to. The es in Europe, the U.S. and overall investment to fund
shift from continuing growth East Asia while the global decarbonisation is relatively
in oil demand with global eco- deep sea shipping liners, in- high (increasing investment
nomic expansion to sharply cluding cruise ship operator in physical assets from less
enforced reductions in de- and tramp shipping compa- than 7% of global GDP to
mand leads to over-capacity nies face severe challenges more than 8%), competition
in tankers. caused by a fragmented for capital becomes tighter.
regulatory and technology Shipping costs increase,
landscape pushing operating adding to consumer prices
cost and freight rates up. and driving inflation.

52
Primary
topic Sub-topic Swells Storms Clear Sky
Trade flows Bounce-back in global trade Sluggish growth in global Steady trade growth. Re-
impacts volumes in the 2020s but trade and shipping volumes duction in demand for oil
below earlier forecasts due but an increasing emphasis and gas affects the oil and
to the Russian crisis. The on local/regional shipping. LNG tanker segment which
later rapid reduction in de- Minimal improvements in moves gradually towards
mand for oil and gas in the global trade efficiency. Af- transports of green fuels in
2030s/2040s affects the oil fected by climate change, the 2030s. Broader carbon
and LNG tanker segment but geopolitical formations, and tax adjustments are en-
the shortfalls are compensat- geographical shifts in agricul- forced and affect trade op-
ed by new transport needs for tural but also industrial pro- erations. The investments in
green fuels. Late regulatory duction as the trend towards and adoption of green tech-
action and lack of availability strong regional economic nologies in many parts of
of sufficient capital leads to a platforms accelerates caus- the world creates new trade
shortage of compliant ships ing benefits for certain ports opportunities. Decarboni-
in the 2030s to support the and challenges for others. sation contributes to a new
trade volumes. Freight rates Shipping market suffers from golden era of - sustainability
soar again. volatility in the 2020s. driven - globalization.

The Russia-Ukraine crisis Slower economic growth Decent economic growth

make regions rethink their and trade frictions depress and increasing cooperation
(energy) supply chains; for growth in shipping. Trade to accelerate the energy/
example, commodities will be tends to be more reginal. Cli- green transition stimulates
sourced from new geogra- mate change-driven changes globalisation. Sky1.5 / Clear
phies which tend to be further in trade patterns alter the Sky has the highest growth
away increasing ton-miles for business models of ports. in ton-miles shipping servic-
waterborne transportation. es of all the scenarios.

Decarbon- Overall focus Effort in some segments of Moderate diffusion of tech- The dense patchwork of
isation / the maritime industry, like nological lessons and lack collaboration and com-
Collabora- cruise shipping and wet bulk of global regulations slow petition ensures rapid
tion / to push LNG as interim fuel overall progress in decarbon- diffusion of technological
Optimisa- in the 2020s and 2030s. ising in particular in the deep progress across the globe.
Pioneers drive more radical sea segment of the industry. Cross-sector partnerships
tion /
solutions picking proven fuels Greater focus on optimising focus on technologies that
Automation
like methanol and pushing regional and local operations boost mode connectivity and
other enablers (e.g. hydrody- and using local solutions to the competition for green
namics, weather routing etc.) decarbonise and digitally op- fuels across the economy
to further their research and timise maritime flows. Some already in the 2020s. Dig-
innovation efforts. Inefficien- countries invest billions in cli- ital optimisation tools find
cies in general continue to mate preparedness and ear- quickly broader adoption.
create profit opportunities in ly warning systems. Others Push to convert to LNG as
shipping for example through lose billions through natural interim fuel and methanol
demurrage for some time. disasters and for reconstruc- ships are in service too. The
Companies remain reluctant tion. Overall, the costs of a use of biofuel and batter-
to make the investment in fragmented world are enor- ies in inland and short sea
digital solutions except for mous. Technology is main- shipping expands quickly.
the larger shipping compa- ly used on a local/regional Recycling is accelerated
nies and ports of the world. scale. Global solutions are and the technology plays
As of 2020 only 80% of the hindered by local regulations an important role in de-
ports of the world do have the and technology tensions and carbonisation in the 2020s
relevant digital capabilities for even wars driven by fear, and 2030s. Green steel for
being integrated in a global mistrust, geopolitics and po- newbuilds is incentivised.
digitally connected maritime litical agendas. Digitalisation Ships are increasingly made
network. across the world is dispersed of recycled materials and
and connectivity fractured. can be recycled at the end
of their use.

53
Primary
topic Sub-topic Swells Storms Clear Sky
After slow start in the 2020s Some countries move fast Every technology is brought
and 2030s, laser-sharp focus and some private actors are to the test, including fuels,
on reducing emissions from establishing global commu- hydrodynamics, and digital
fossil fuels in the 2040s. nication network. But global tools. Digitalisation is a
Eventually, everything is coordination to extract signif- mean to help decarbonise
thrown into the mix, including icant value is lacking. Local through optimised opera-
hydrogen-ammonia, wind, automation produces limited tions, automation, visibility
carbon capture and stor- benefits for the global mar- and carbon calculation.
age technology, methanol itime ecosystem. The lack ICT-communication cover-
and even nuclear, digitalisa- of common frameworks and age increases supporting
tion-based optimisation tools standards are additional hur- digitalisation. Synchroniza-
and regulatory measures on dles in the way of implement- tion with just-in-time arrivals
local and global level. Centu- ing global decarbonisation reduces emissions by up to
ry-old contracts and practices solutions. The west suffers 20%. Better routing yields
are thrown overboard to deal from cyberattacks of Rus- 3-15% reductions and au-
with the massive conse- sian and other criminal cyber tonomous ships are intro-
quences of climate change. syndicates. duced in the 2030s.
Autonomous ships emerge in
the 2030s/2040s.

Ecosystem / Multiple industry coalitions The ecosystem gets more Steady convergence among
coalition with overlapping missions fragmented. International major international and na-
and limited impact to begin collaborations weaken as tional regulatory authorities.
with chaotic global collab- the emphasis grows on local Business sector coalitions
orations that arise later in conditions and regional and and partnerships emerge
response to pressures of domestic connectivity and driven by both external
knee-jerk policies. Shipping relations. Some regions in- pressures and competitive
lines with zero-emission crease their decarbonisation opportunities. The mar-
goals aim at cooperating with efforts, like Europe, while itime industry competes
countries, energy producers, other areas stick to their heavily on fuels with other
etc. to ensure supply of green commitments and plans with parts of the economy. The
fuels. As lighthouses they the highest level of collabo- initial efforts of large ocean
provide impetus for closer co- ration like China and Japan. liners to build decarbonisa-
operation across the cluster Efficiency improvements tion coalitions become the
of value chains. Customers occur locally but not globally, foundations of a new global
seek closer collaboration with and high emission fleets are coalition with regulators
shipping lines to reduce their allowed to continue oper- supporting the private sector
carbon footprint. Initiatives ating. But they face carbon actors. The IMO enjoys a
like zero-emission corridors tax in certain regions, like new role in the decarbonisa-
move at a slow pace till the Europe. Countries in favor of tion effort with the support
2030s. Then an increasing rapid decarbonisation install of all their members. The
number of coordinated efforts zero-emission coalitions and critical interdependent
are launched. corridors within their sphere value chains, fuel, ship,
of influence. operations get increasingly
balanced.

54
Primary
topic Sub-topic Swells Storms Clear Sky
Fuel types Adoption of LNG as an LNG makes steadily inroads On deep sea, LNG fuels
available, affordable and as a fuel. Global indus- rise in share until the 2030s
lower-emissions interim fuel tries test and drive flexible before they decline to make
combined with high trade de- solutions to cope with the room for greener solutions
mand. Methanol makes early fragmentation balancing the including green LNG. Adop-
inroads as an easy option of critical value chains fuel, tion of methanol-powered
the alternative fuels for deep- ships and operations. More ships, other than methanol
sea shipping- it is in liquid methanol-powered deep-sea tankers, starts in the 2020s.
state in ambient temperature ships are put into service Wind is also part of the mix.
which make it easy to handle and ammonia-powered ships Ammonia ICE available in
and store usable in internal emerge in the 2020s. By the mid 2020s applied in certain
combustion engines (ICE). end of the century hydro- areas where safety can be
The fossil-fuel backlash also gen-ammonia accounts for ensured. Large capacity
accelerates the development around 10% of marine fuels. hydrogen fuel cells will be
of commercial hydrogen/am- Regionally companies use tested in the 2030s. Even
monia powered vessels. In what’s available, i.e. what nuclear is considered for
the next three decades, LNG is produced locally, e.g. bi- deep sea shipping but with
rises to become 10-15% of ofuel or batteries for inland highest scrutiny as health/
all shipping fuel, and hydro- waterways and short sea safety is the utmost priority
gen-ammonia approaches shipping. Others experiment in this scenario. In inland
5%. The fuel cell capacity with methanol and ammonia. waterways and short sea
increase takes time which Ports adjust their storage shipping biofuels are impor-
pushes application beyond and filling capabilities to the tant but also battery-pow-
2030. Anti-fossil develop- local production and demand ered ships take their share
ments bring the LNG era to at the detriment of a global growing quickly. Regulators
an end in the 2040s. approach to decarbonisation. help the uptake.

Ship types The IMO ambitions and A two-tier market emerges Strong incentive to improve
regulated carbon reductions driven by a regional push to vessel energy efficiency
are too low to achieve the improve the fleet. In some and ratings across the fleet.
Paris Agreement goals. By regions the port states push Green Corridors are es-
2030 this becomes a bigger for improvements, whereas tablished widely, becoming
concern, and the IMO raises in other areas less energy pilots for stakeholder collab-
ambitions and targets. Green efficient vessels are allowed oration. Lessons learnt will
Corridors are established in to operate. Green Corridor help to build the worldwide
some parts of the world but efforts are not supported zero carbon network. Invest-
progress in the corridors is by the regions. The focus ment in R&D and infrastruc-
slow. Cluster of interdepend- is on short-sea shipping ture development supports
ent supply chains is fractured. and inland waterways with the gradual renewal of the
Different levels of investment often older vessels. The fleet. First older less energy
in the different regions slows sector is comparably easier efficient ships are phased
down the progress. A few to decarbonise because of out. By 2030 first zero car-
large operators are piloting lesser propulsion capacity, bon ship are in operation,
alternative fuels and tech- and it can be supported with with the fleet replacement
nology eventually adapted existing technology, such gradually continuing to-
globally. as batteries, fuel cells, and wards 2100.
biofuels.

55
Primary
topic Sub-topic Swells Storms Clear Sky
Regulation Direction and IMO raises decarbonisa- Weakening IMO influence Gradual convergence of
pace tion goals but struggles with over regional and local reg- EU, China and US regu-
implementation. Incremental ulations leads to a heterog- latory approaches which
change shifts suddenly to enous approach towards strengthen the IMO, as all
accelerated anti-emissions decarbonisation, with tighter stakeholders recognise the
and anti-fossil fuel regula- regulation of emissions in advantages of clarity, stand-
tion in different parts of the some areas like Europe and ards and a level playing field
world, starting in Europe, then California and slow change in in the area in the pursuit of
Japan, China followed by the other regions such as Latin decarbonisation, building
U.S. The Russia crisis accel- America. The IMO applies a competitive advantages and
erates focus on renewable consensus approach causing new business opportunities
energy in Europe. Japan and slow decision-making. The like carbon trading through
China stay on their decarbon- situation allows some reginal accelerated emissions
isation track while the U.S. or local governments take reduction. Regulations sup-
initially increases its focus decisions faster than before. port fair transition in which
on fossil fuels. Regulation is East Asian countries imple- developed nations’ share of
fragmented with duplications, ment what they need to do to the cost is proportional to
e.g. multiple ETS systems. In live up to their commitments. the climate change impact
the 2020s and 2030s broader While pressures exerted of the past helping devel-
parts of the maritime industry through western custom- oping nations to finance
push LNG as an interim fuel. ers in tenders is raising, the green energy production
Short sea shipping lines are decoupling offers an easy to cover their increasing
driving biofuel and electric escape. The U.S. contribute energy needs to support
solutions. The U.S. and China on a short sea and inland economic growth. Govern-
push electric boats/tugs for waterways transport level but ments support the effort with
inland waterways shipping. leaves direction and speed fiscal measures, penalising
Major deep sea shipping lines entirely to the private sector emitters and incentivising
select specific decarbonisation players. The fragmented “decarbonisers”. Regula-
technologies, like methanol to world stands in the way of a tions support different solu-
drive them towards broader high pace decarbonisation tions suitable for different
adoption. Which eventually effort in the maritime industry sectors, allowing to close
succeeds in the 2030s/2040s. and the entire global econ- gaps across the cluster of
omy. maritime value chains.

Financial Incremental change driven by Heterogenous requirements Accelerated broad require-

reporting the ESG requirements which prevail beyond those com- ments for financial reporting.
obligations forces companies and banks panies that operate globally Decarbonisation becomes
to apply more sustainable with global financing needs a central reporting item with
operational and investment which follow the ESG rules. companies to show pro-
practices and report on their The lack of transparency gress in reductions. Pro-
progress of their efforts to de- and comparability confus- gress on CO2 reduction is
carbonise their businesses. es consumers and financial part of the value proposition.
markets.

Emissions EU ETS placed under great Sluggish economic growth The IMO adopts a global
trading pressure as initial deployment reduces pressure on ETS / levy. Such schemes
of new technologies across schemes like the EU ETS. are essential for financing
the economy fails to reduce However, disappointing de- the transition. Continued
demand in line with legis- ployment of new technology expansion of regional and
lated caps, so is weakened eventually puts pressure on local schemes, through
by increased allowances. In the system and nationalis- convergence facilitated by
later decades, however, it is tic sentiment ensures it is Article 6 mechanisms under
reinforced along with other weakened to the point of the Paris Agreement.
schemes as the pace of de- irrelevance.
mand reduction is forced.

56
Appendix 3: Identified enablers and their characteristics

Value chain
Category F S O Enabler Description
LNG Although the cleanest, liquified natural gas (LNG) is a fossil fuel
which is currently in the ramping up phase as fuel solution for
shipping; potential transition to eLNG or bio LNG. Natural gas
emits ~24% less CO2 than oil per unit of energy.

Green LNG / LBG Green LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) refers to either reducing
greenhouse gas emissions or offsetting GHG emissions
associated with some or all of the LNG value chain. LBG refers
to Liquid BioGas

Green methane Green Methane refers to either reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions or offsetting GHG emissions associated with some or all of
the Methane value chain.

Biodiesel Biofuels in internal combustion engines (ICEs) are in use and

play a role across all scenarios but causing biodiversity and food
Multi-fuels 4 4 4 concerns; domestic waste may be worth a look. High conversion
losses from biomass to biofuel makes it a costly option.

Green methanol Green methanol is carbon neutral and can be used in ICEs and
can be used as hydrogen carrier. Although tank-to-wake fuel effi-
ciency is slightly less than diesel, the well-to-tank fuel conversion
losses strongly reduces overall efficiency and hence increases
system costs.

Green ammonia Green ammonia is carbon free but highly toxic, can also be used
in ICEs; can be used as hydrogen carrier, but will need some
diesel blend to ignite. Same fuel efficiency issues as for green
methanol.

Green hydrogen Hydrogen produced using alternative non-hydrocarbon energy.

Hydrogen in itself is always carbon free and can be used in ICEs
but also in fuel cells to produce electricity.

Green electricity From Wind, Solar or decarbonised power plants with Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS), stored in batteries and used to
Other power 4 4 4 power electric motors, especially for shorter voyages
sources
Nuclear Nuclear is a mature technology but with security and safety
concerns and high costs

Market-based mech- EU emissions trading system (ETS = emission trading scheme);

anism (MBM) - Euro- carbon price
pean Trading Scheme
(ETS) and levy

EEDI/EEXI Energy Efficiency Design Index / Energy Efficiency eXisting ship

Regulations 4 4 4 Index; Requirements for new and existing ships correspondingly

CII Carbon Intensity Indicator; Operational index

Gradual reduction Minimum percentage of clean fuels as a part of the total fill
of carbon content in
fuels

57
 Value chain
Category F S O Enabler Description
Incentives for green The use of incentives to stimulate ramp-up of the green
fuel production production of multiple types of green fuel

4 4 4 Incentives for clean Additional cost of building zero or low carbon emission ships
Financing
shipbuilding should be compensated with financial incentives.

Green innovation / Closing the funding gaps for green maritime innovation, e.g.
R&D funds between feasibility and scale

Multi-fuel ICE engines Engines that can run on different fuels, e.g. heavy fuel oil or
/ onboard storages VLSFO and methanol with the respective storages for the re-
spective fuels

Fuel cell technology A fuel cell technology that uses hydrogen, methanol, or ammonia
Multi-fuel to produce electricity
power 4 4
systems
Batteries powered Electricity from batteries’ powered motors, needing higher
motors capacity batteries (solid state with next generation anodes)

Upgradability / Replace higher carbon-intense power plants with more

Retrofitting carbon-efficient power plants and storage

Recyclable ships of Recycling ships and building ships from recycled materials takes
recyclable material significant carbon out of the life cycle of a ship
Circularity 4 4
Carbon capture and Carbon captured from the process of producing fuels or from
storage (CCS) using fuel to generate power, and storing the captured carbon in
so that it does not release into the atmosphere

Fuel storage / Facilities and equipment to store fuels (including methanol,

Fuelling equipment ammonia or hydrogen beside existing fuel).
Port 4 4 for alternative fuels
measures
On-shore power Powering auxiliary engines from the onshore grid
supply

Electrolysis solutions Hydrogen produced with green electricity is used to make easier
for green fuels from to transport energy carriers like methonol, ammonia and synthet-
renewable electricity ic fuels
Green
power-to-X 4
technologies Technologies to Synthetic fuels made from green hydrogen and carbon from
produce green fuels biomass, waste or direct air capture.
from biomass/waste/
carbon

Ship Wind Support Wind as a supportive measure contributes to fuel reduction and
4
optimisation consequently carbon emissions

Hydrodynamics Hull design, silicon paint, air lubrification etc.

Ship size optimisation Operate ship size in line with demand for capacity

Fleet renewal Taking advantage of new generation lower emissions ships

Autonomous ships Autonomous ships are operated without crew onboard. They are
not by default optimised for fuel consumption, but they have a
potential for improved operational efficiencies

58
 Value chain
Category F S O Enabler Description
JIT Port Calls Just-in-Time arrival in port to avoid delays in loading or
discharging. JiT optimises the vessel utilisation.

Advanced weather Weather routing provides guidance for the vessel to choose the
routing best route for the given environmental conditions.

Commercial contracts Commercial contracts defining the commercial terms for the
voyage and to secure integration within and across the three
value chains, as e.g. the provision and storage of fuel, virtual port
approaches etc.
Operations
4
controls
Slot Management Slot management moves beyond JIT arrivals and includes the
departure perspective as well

Speed Optimisation Speed optimisation optimises the speed for the selected param-
eters, e.g. fuel consumption, fuel price, charter rates, regulatory
requirements. Slower speeds reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions.

GHG emissions cal- Methodology and tools that calculate the GHG emissions of a
culation voyage taking fuel carbon factors into account.

59
Appendix 4: Scoring (Harvey balls) of general enablers
INDICATIVE
Value chain Impact on Ease of Acceptance
Category belonging Enabler GHG execution across
F S O reduction stakeholder
LNG
Green LNG / LBG
Green methane
Multi-fuels Biodiesel
Green methanol
Green ammonia
Green hydrogen
Other power Green electricity
sources Nuclear
Market based measures (MBM)
- European Trading Scheme (ETS) and levy
EEDI/EEXI
Regulations CII
Gradual reduction of carbon content in fuel
Incentives for green fuel production
Financing Incentives for green shipbuilding
Green innovation / R&D funds
Multi-fuel ICE engines / onboard storages
Multi-fuel Fuel cell technology
power Batteries powered motors
systems
Upgradability / Retrofitting
Recyclable ships of recyclable material
Circularity Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
Fuel storage/ Fuelling equipment for
Port
alternative fuels
measures
On-shore power supply
Electrolysis solutions for green fuels from
Green power-
renewable electricity
to-X
Technologies to produce green fuels from
technologies
biomass/waste/carbon
Wind Support
Hydrodynamics
Ship
optimisation Ship size optimisation
Fleet renewal
Autonomous ships
JIT Port Calls
Advanced weather routing
Operations Commercial contracts
controls
Slot Management
Speed Optimisation
GHG emissions calculation

60
Appendix 5: Arguments for the evaluation of the general enablers

INDICATIVE
Value chain Impact on Acceptance across
Category F S O Enabler GHG reduction Ease of execution stakeholder

LNG 1 = 30% less CO2 emis- 3 = Technology first imple- 3 = LNG enjoys high ac-
sions (Tank-to-Wake) than mented on LNG ships and ceptance except the meth-
fuel oil but with the risk of now also on other ship types ane leakage
methane leakage

Green LNG / 4 = Green when produced 4 = Capabilities are in place 3 = Widely accepted as
LBG with renewable energy and fuel
CO2-free equipment, trans-
ported with zero carbon
vehicles, and stored in and
filled with zero carbon emis-
sion infrastructure

Green 4 = Green when produced 4 = Capabilities are in place 3 = Widely accepted as

methane with renewable energy and fuel
CO2-free equipment, trans-
ported with zero carbon
vehicles, and stored in and
filled with zero carbon emis-
sion infrastructure

Biodiesel 4 = Carbon neutral fuel; 4 = Biofuels are in operation 3 = This alternative fuel is
Biofuels produced entirely today and can be used in widely accepted but there
from biomass offer reduc- internal combustion engines are biodiversity and food
tions in life-cycle green- (ICE) competition concerns,
house gas emissions from beside large-scale biomass
67% to 93% less than HFO availability issues and cost
competitive issues with
sectors that can afford pay-
Multi-fuels 4 4 4 ing higher prices (Aviation)

Green 4 = Carbon neutral fuel: 2 = Methanol powered tank- 3 = This alternative fuel
methanol Green when produced with ers are in service, but the enjoys a relatively high
renewable energy and CO2- engines are dual-fuel engine acceptance across stake-
free equipment, transported and can burn HFO holders, but Well-to-Tank
with zero carbon vehicles, conversion technologies
and stored in and filled with may prove (too) costly with
zero carbon emission infra- alternatives.
structure

Green 4 = Green when produced 1 = Highly toxic and al- 2 = Because ammonia
ammonia with renewable energy and though ammonia is used in is highly toxic it faces a
CO2-free equipment, trans- fertilizer factories it is com- certain level of resistance
ported with zero carbon plex to establish the value among stakeholders, but
vehicles, and stored in and chain Well-to-Tank conversion
filled with zero carbon emis- technologies may prove
sion infrastructure (too) costly with alterna-
tives.

Green 4 = Green when produced 2 = the production from 2 = There is a need for
hydrogen from Natural Gas with CCS large scale electrolysers fuelling infrastructure and
or renewable energy and and renewable electricity large-scale reliable fuel
CO2-free equipment, trans- is ramping up for industrial cells. Electric drive chains
ported with zero carbon purposes and to replace are established technolo-
vehicles, and stored in and natural gas (EU), while (liq- gy. Need for more public
filled with zero carbon emis- uid/high pressure) storage awareness / acceptance
sion infrastructure tank technology is being
developed.

61
INDICATIVE
Value chain Impact on Acceptance across
Category F S O Enabler GHG reduction Ease of execution stakeholder

Green 4 = Zero-emission power- 3 = Fully electric driven 4 = Broadly accepted

electricity ing. Green when produced ships are starting to become across stakeholders, as
with renewable energy used in ferry transports and this is the most energy effi-
and CO2-free equipment, inland waterway shipping. cient route to use renewa-
transported via zero carbon Broader use dependent on ble electricity for propulsion
systems, and distributed better battery technology
via zero carbon emission emerging.
infrastructure
Other power 4 4 4
sources
Nuclear 4 = Zero-emission powering 3 = Small Modular Reac- 2 = In several countries’
when the process is green tors (SMR) would enable population is highly con-
this, especially as it reuses cerned about the use of
nuclear waste, but han- nuclear power while other
dling nuclear remains risky; nations remain relatively
recent technology devel- comfortable
opment with molten salt
reactors

Market- 4 = MBMis an effective 4 = Straight forward concept 3 = Increasingly accepted

based mech- mechanism to support the but difficult to agree imple- concept
anism (MBM) transition towards clean mentation globally
- Europe- shipping
an Trading
Scheme
(ETS) and
levy

EEDI/EEXI 1 = Regulatory require- 4 = EEDI requirement since 4 = Accepted

Regulations 4 4 4 ments on ship design 2011 and EEXI in 2023.

CII 1 = Regulatory requirement 4 = Entry into force in 2023 3 = Concerns raised in

on ship operations respect to calculation for
cruise liners and the 5,000
GT threshold

Gradual 2 = Supports the green 4 = Simple to implement 3 = Has not been accepted
reduction of transition globally
carbon con-
tent in fuels

Incentives 4 = Support ramp up of 0 = Concept to be devel- 3 = Large acceptance

for green fuel value chain oped
production

Incentives for 4 = Support ship optimi- 0 = Design concepts and 3 = Large acceptance
Financing 4 4 4 green ship- sation technology needs to be
building developed

Green inno- 3 = Drives required inno- 3 = Not everyone is on 3 = Not everyone supports
vation / R&D vation board on how it should be a dedicated R&D fund
funds funded

62
INDICATIVE
Value chain Impact on Acceptance across
Category F S O Enabler GHG reduction Ease of execution stakeholder

Multi-fuel 3 = They exist but not for 4 = Can be used for new- 4 = No objections
ICE engines all fuels builds but also used for
/ onboard retrofitting
storages

Fuel cell 4 = Zero-emission drive 1 = Progress is expected 4 = No objections, but drive

technology chain to be made but solution chain costs need (much)
for large capacity fuel cells improvement
required for ocean going
ships will be ready in about
Multi-fuel a decade
power 4 4
systems
Batteries 4 = Zero-emission drive 2 = First battery-powered 4 = Appreciated by stake-
powered chain ships have been built but holders
motors batteries are still not large
and powerful enough and
too expensive

Upgradability 2 = Available but expensive 2 = Available, limited scope 2 = Incremental and eco-
/ Retrofitting in particular for old ships and expensive in particular nomics need to improve
and limited scope for old ships as the focus is
on newbuilds

Recycla- 2 = Circular economy ap- 1 = Although first efforts 4 = There is a general high
ble ships of proaches reduce signifi- have been made by leading acceptance of recycling as
recyclable cantly carbon emissions players in the industry large concept, but cost picture
material due to reduced need for scale knowledge and capa- brings realism
extraction and production, bilities are lacking
Circularity 4 4 but recycling uses energy
itself as well

Carbon cap- 3 = CCS is an efficient way 1 = Difficult to execute on 2 = The solution faces
ture and stor- to abate carbon emissions ships and land infrastructure doubts and concerns
age (CCS) is lacking across stakeholder groups

Fuel storage 4 = For zero-emission fuels 2 = Many alternative fuels 4 = No objections

/ Fuelling cannot use the existing
equipment infrastructure. Some require
for alternative cryogenic conditions or high
fuels pressure to remain in liquid
Port phase.
measures 4 4
On-shore 3 = Some CO2 reduction 2 = Technology is available 3 = Largely accepted
power supply potential existing situation but challenges with the on-
and high impact for renewa- shore energy supply (holistic
ble power supply approach required)

Electrolysis 4 = Technology helps to 2 = Technology is in use but 4 = Generally accepted

solutions for produce zero-emission fuels needs time for ramping up to
green fuels mainstream application and
from renewa- scaling
Green ble electricity
power-to-X 4
technolo- Technologies 4 = Technology produces 2 = Technology is in use but 4 = Generally accepted,
gies to produce zero-emission fuels needs time for ramping up to but technology needs to be
green fuels mainstream application and developed and cost greatly
from bio- scaling reduced.
mass/waste/
carbon

63
INDICATIVE
Value chain Impact on Acceptance across
Category F S O Enabler GHG reduction Ease of execution stakeholder

Wind Support 1 = Wind is weather 3 = Wind is weather depend- 3 = Broadly accepted

dependent and only a ent and only a supplementa- across all stakeholder
supplementary solution, ry solution. The supporting groups
zero-emission option technology exists and is in
developing stage for scale-
up but not easily implement-
ed on all ship types.

Hydrodynam- 1 = About 20 % CO2 reduc- 4 = Leaders in decarbon- 3 = Broadly accepted as

ics tion potential isation are using various concept across all stake-
solutions holder groups, but sparsely
executed

Ship size op- 1 = About 20 % CO2 reduc- 4 = Practiced by many car- 4 = Broadly accepted
Ship
timisation tion potential but effect is riers for decarbonisation but across all stakeholder
optimisa- 4 limited as there is a long tail also cost reasons groups
tion
of many shipping compa-
nies operating few ships

Fleet renewal 3 = Supports the transition 2 = Financing needs to be 3 = It is generally accept-

ensured ed that fleet renewal will
be needed to get to net
zero emissions but there
is no agreement on the
pace of the renewal

Autonomous 1 = Autonomy can yield fuel 2 = Autonomous ships are 3 = Widely accepted con-
ships efficiency - more on longer not yet there- what when cept with some concerns
voyages by optimising ves- something goes wrong?
sel routing

JIT Port Calls 1 = JIT Port Calls can re- 3 = Solution faces head- 3 = Low resistance expe-
duce carbon emissions up winds due to existing con- rienced/expected by any
to 20% tractual arrangements stakeholder group

Advanced 1 = Routing optimisation 4 = Solution just to be in- 4 = No resistance expe-

weather can reduce carbon emission stalled rienced/expected by any
routing 3%-15% stakeholder group

Commercial 2 = Prerequisite for just- 2 = Historic contracts and 2 = Some stakeholders in

contracts in-time arrivals and slot routines need to be broken the maritime industry are
management both will make and redesigned sceptical and some protect
trade more efficient, support their self-interest
optimum speed s and elim-
inate emissions caused by
port congestion
Operations 4
controls
Slot Manage- 2 = Higher impact than 2 = Faces similar headwinds 2 = Higher resistance due
ment JIT arrivals as it takes the than JIT arrivals to the need of changing
whole port call into account contractual arrangements
enabling better planning for and operational practices
the routing

Speed Opti- 1 = 20% decarbonisation 4 = Practised since the mid 4 = Commonly accepted
misation potential 2000s

GHG emis- 4 = Without measuring we 3 = Not yet fully scaled 4 = No objections

sions calcu- can’t manage; the basis for with some complexities in
lation ensuring progress the way, such as access
to real-time accurate data.
IMO and EU requirement to
report CO2 emission data

64
Appendix 6: Assessment (Harvey balls) of dynamic enablers

INDICATIVE
Readiness of solution Availability Financial viability
(Now and 2030) (Now and 2030) (Now and 2030)
Category Enabler
Clear Clear Clear
Now Swells Storms Sky Now Swells Storms Sky Now Swells Storms Sky
LNG
Green LNG / LBG
Green methane
Biodiesel
Multi-fuels
Green methanol
Green ammonia
Green hydrogen
Other power Green electricity
sources Nuclear
Market based measures (MBM) -
European Trading Scheme (ETS) and
levy
EEDI/EEXI
Regulations CII
Gradual reduction of carbon content
in fuel
Incentives for green fuel production
Incentives for green shipbuilding
Financing
Green innovation / R&D funds
Multi-fuel ICE engines / onboard
Multi-fuel storages
power Fuel cell technology
systems Batteries powered motors
Upgradability / Retrofitting
Recyclable ships of recyclable
material
Circularity
Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
Fuel storage / Fuelling equipment for
Port alternative fuels
measures On-shore power supply
Electrolysis solutions for green fuels
Green power- from renewable electricity
to-X Technologies to produce green fuels
technologies from biomass/waste/carbon
Wind Support
Hydrodynamics
Ship Ship size optimisation
optimisation
Fleet renewal
Autonomous ships
JIT Port Calls
Advanced weather routing
Commercial contracts
Operations
controls Slot Management
Speed Optimisation
GHG emissions calculation

65
Appendix 7: Arguments for the evaluation of the dynamic enablers

INDICATIVE Readiness of solution (Now and 2030)

Category Enabler Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

LNG 3 = LNG technology is 3 = More infrastructure 3 = Slower ramp up of 4 = Push for LNG as
in use, but infrastructure will be available in 2030 infrastructure due to var- interim fuel by IMO, the
needs still to be ramped up ying priorities EU, Japan and China

Green LNG 2 = produced today in 2 = More availability 2 = Localised use 2 = More availability
/ LBG very limited quantities

Green 2 = produced today in 2 = More availability 2 = Localised use 2 = More availability

methane very limited quantities

Biodiesel 3 = 1st gen technology is 3 = Sluggish develop- 3 = Fragmented devel- 4 = Biofuel is a drop-
available but production ment opment in fuel and does not
and fuelling systems are require new types of
limited engines. Push for 2nd
gen technologies (PtX)
Multi-
fuels Green 2 = Technology is in lim- 2 = Technology has ma- 2 = No major progress 3 = A push for green
methanol ited maritime use today tured, fueling infrastruc- made methanol has helped
with limited fueling infra- ture slightly expanded to expand infrastruc-
structure ture

Green am- 2 = Ammonia is a ze- 2 = Although promising 2 = Selected develop- 2 = The need for a
monia ro-carbon fuel option but as zero-emission solution ment in South Korea, zero-carbon solution
highly toxic, emits NOx the development remains Japan, China and the EU has pushed ammonia
and not yet in use slow towards maturity

Green hy- 1 = First with a small 2 = R&D continues 2 = R&D continues 2 = R&D is pushed
drogen vessel in Europe; Tugboat
ordered in the US with
methanol reformer and
hydrogen fuel cell; fuel
cell capacity is a constraint

Green elec- 2 = Ready but renewable 3 = Technology has ma- 3 = Technology has 3 = Technology and vol-
tricity energy supply limited and tured but still lack of grid matured but still lack of ume has been pushed
grid capacity insufficient and volume scale scale as countries focus
Other on road applications
power
sources
Nuclear 2 = Technology is ready in 2 = Idem 2 = Idem 2 = Idem
defense by not commer-
cial shipping

Market-based 4 = Ready for implement- 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

mechanism ing in the maritime indus-
(MBM) -Euro- try; challenging political
pean Trading climate
Scheme (ETS)
Regul- and levy
ations
EEDI/EEXI 4 = Ready to use 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

CII 3 = Regulatory require- 4 = CII is implemented 4 = CII is implemented 4 = CII is implemented

ment

Gradual 0 = Fuel standard pro- 3 = Technologies re- 2 = Technologies re- 4 = New regulation put
reduction of posed as a regulatory quired sorted, but fuel quired sorted; fuel stand- in place
carbon con- measure standard not agreed ard not agreed
tent in fuel

66
INDICATIVE Readiness of solution (Now and 2030)
Category Enabler Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

Incentives 3 = Many programs and 3 = Not a lot of changes 2 = Dispersed world and 4 = Financial products
for green incentives are currently globally because further fuel value chain with lim- to finance the transfor-
fuel produc- available, but more is re- exploration and produc- ited scope for ramping up mation of the fuel value
tion quired to specifically ramp tion of hydrocarbons is also limits the expansion chain has been expand-
up the maritime fuel value continuing in the fossil of financial products ed aggressively
chain fuel driven economy

Financ-
Incentives 0 = Idea stage 2 = Except in the OECD 1 = Except in the EU and 3 = Globally financing
ing
for green and China limited efforts China limited efforts to practices have been
shipbuilding to change practices change practices altered to incentivise
CO2 reduction efforts

Green in- 1 = Fragmented policy 3 = Companies focus 3 = Fragmentation in poli- 4 = International mech-
novation / and efforts; proposal on areas of interest and cy and efforts remain anisms in place
R&D funds the table in the IMO growth funds set-up

Multi-fuel 2 = Ready for some fuels 3 = More options avail- 2 = Some progress made 4 = Heavy investment
ICE engines able in engine innovation
/ onboard
storages

Fuel cell 2 = Technology is ready 2 = First fuel cells de- 2 = First fuel cells in test 2 = Fuel cells de-risked
technology but requires more risked and further R&D pushed
Multi- stress-testing
fuel
power Batteries 2 = First small ships are 3 = Gradual improve- 3 = Idem 3 = Idem
systems powered in service but batter- ment at pace of battery
motors ies need to have better improvement
power/weight ratio and be
cheaper

Upgradabil- 2 = Available for some 2 = Solution matured 2 = Solution matured 3 = Solution matured
ity / Retro- solutions
fitting

Recyclable 1 = Capabilities still 2 = Certain countries and 1 = Capacity building has 3 = Despite major push
ships of lacking companies invest in cir- not seen lots of progress towards circular econ-
recyclable cular capacity building omy, other sectors
material have more gvt focus
Circu-
larity
Carbon 1 = Technology is not ma- 2 = Technology demon- 2 = Idem 2 = Idem, as it is not
capture and ture for shipping in 2022 strated seen as a spearhead
storage tech for shipping
(CCS)

Fuel 1 = Build-up for some 3 = More fuels can be 3 = More fuels can be 3 = Infrastructure de-
storage / green fuels in few sea- stored stored velopment parallel with
Fuelling ports the new fuels and new
equipment low carbon ships
Port for alterna-
meas- tive fuels
ures

On-shore 2 = Solution is ready, but 3 = Solution available 3 = Solution available in 4 = Solution availa-
power sup- the supply of (green) elec- across OECD EU and East Asia ble in many countries
ply tricity is still limited across the globe

67
INDICATIVE Readiness of solution (Now and 2030)
Category Enabler Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

Electrolysis 3 = Solution in R&D stage 3 = Solution in use at 3 = Solution in use at 4 = Solution in use at
solutions and used at small scale larger scale small scale large scale
for green
fuels from
renewable
Green electricity
power-
to-X
technol- Technolo- 1 = mainly R&D and test 2 = First industrial 1 = First demonstration 2 = First industrial
ogies gies to pro- phase demonstration plants plants demonstration plants
duce green
fuels from
biomass/
waste/ car-
bon

Wind Sup- 1 = The technology is in 2 = Progress has been 2 = Some progress has 3 = Technology ma-
port R&D stage made; experimental use been made tures due to more ex-
periments; first ships
in service

Hydrody- 3 = Many pieces of the 3 = More pressures 3 = Idem 3 = Idem, but even
namics puzzle are there from shippers to re- stronger due to effec-
duce CO2 footprint tive carbon pricing

Ship size 4 = Different sizes of 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

Ship
optimisation ships are available for
optimi-
different purposes
sation

Fleet re- 1 = Largely voluntary re- 2 = Largely competition 1 = Largely driven by 3 = Incentives pro-
newal newal sometimes required driven renewal in certain customer value proposi- gramme for systematic
by customers, sometimes subsectors tion and markets fleet renewal
incentivised

Autono- 1 = On the path to readi- 2 = Autonomous tech- 2 = Autonomous tech- 2 = Autonomous tech-
mous ships ness many hurdles still to nology significantly nology improved, but nology significantly
be overcome improved hampered by knowledge improved but not a gvt
sharing barriers priority

JIT Port 1 = Solution is developed 2 = Solution is in use at 1 = Solution improved but 3 = Rising pressures
Calls limited scale but ham- tests are hampered by forces to rework
pered by contracts local interests contracts and expand
adoption

Advanced 3 = Solution is ready 4 = Solution has matured 4 = Solution has matured 4 = Solution has ma-
weather tured
routing

Commercial 0 = Contracts are in the 1 = Little effort is made to 1 = Little effort is made to 2 = Push for change of
Oper- contracts way of optimised opera- change what works change what works limiting contracts
ations tions
controls

Slot Man- 2 = Concept is ready 3 = Thinking matured 3 = Thinking matured 4 = First test at limited
agement scale

Speed Opti- 3 = Concept is ready 4 = Concept refined 4 = Concept refined 4 = Concept refined
misation

GHG emis- 2 = Important starting 2 = Provides indication 2 = Provides indication 4 = Is used to hold com-
sions calcu- point but does not decar- where to reduce where to reduce panies accountable to
lation bonise targets

68
INDICATIVE Availability (Now and 2030)
Category Enabler Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

LNG 4 = LNG is available with 4 = 2030 4 = 2030 4 = 2030

some concerns for com-
peting applications and
supply availability

Green LNG 1 = Early-stage systems 2 = Value chain slightly 1= Value chain slightly 2 = pushed as green fuel
/ LBG ramped up ramped up

Green 1 = Early-stage systems 2 = Value chain slightly 1 = Value chain slightly 2 = pushed as interim
methane ramped up ramped up fuel

Biodiesel 1 = In 2022 there is a lack 1 = Production of biofuel 1 = Fractured develop- 2 = policies helping to
of sufficient biofuel quan- is ramping up slowly ment, Europe moves expand biofuel produc-
tities (in addition maritime fastest tion and infrastructure
industry competes with development
other sectors like aviation)
Multi-
fuels
Green 1 = The entire total pro- 2 = Production and 1 = Production and 3 = Green energy
methanol duction of green methanol infrastructure is slowly infrastructure is slowly production and infra-
accounts for less than 1% ramping up ramping up structure build up is
of the maritime industry’s supported by policy
consumptionlxi

Green 1 = Limited availability; 1 = Volume remains 1 = Volume remains 2 = Green energy

ammonia engines not yet available limited limited production and infra-
structure build up is
supported by policy

Green 0 = Only demonstration 1 = More demonstration 1 = Regional experi- 2 = Adopters in various

hydrogen projects projects with some early ments with some regional regions; R&D, green
adopters adoption energy production and
Infrastructure build up is
supported by policy

Green 1 = First adopters / mov- 2 = More electrification in 2 = More electrification in 2 = Renewable energy is
electricity ers, e.g. Scandinavia and the Nordics and in China the Nordics and in China; supported by policy and
China, small vessels in adopted in short sea incentives, but scope
Other coastal service shipping remains short distances
power
sources Nuclear 1 = Due to maturity in 1 = Idem 1 = Idem, but some coun- 1 = Idem
commercial shipping, se- tries/regions experiment
curity and safety concerns within own jurisdiction
limited availability

Market-based 1 = Adopted in Europe 2 = Adopted on OECD 1 = Adopted in Europe 4 = The systems is

mechanism routes applied across the
(MBM) -Euro- globe
pean Trading
Scheme (ETS)
Regul- and levy
ations
EEDI/EEXI 4 = EEDI is in force 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

CII 0 = Ready to be imple- 3 = CII is implemented 2 = CII is implemented 4 = CII is used as

mented but not followed every- but with limited impact instrument to reduce
where emissions

Gradual 0 = Regulation has not 2 = OECD introduced 1 = EU introduces regula- 4 = Policy introduced
reduction of been agreed regulation tion globally and enforced
carbon con-
tent in fuel

69
INDICATIVE Availability (Now and 2030)
Category Enabler Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

Incentives 1 = Little products avail- 2 = Some improvements 2 = Limited develop- 4 = Aggressive expan-
for green able in certain regions and ments, beside EU and sion of globally avail-
fuel mature parts of the value China able financial instru-
production chain, across OECD and ments and structured
China products

Incentives 0 = Not implemented 2 = ESG practices pene- 1= Regional regulations 4 = Regulators pro-
Financ- for green beyond normal efficiency trate on all global routes force local financing con- vide frameworks for
ing shipbuilding improvements to reduce and many local routes ditions financial institutions
overall costs to force low emission
designs

Green 1 = Small capital available 2 = Capital is provided by 1 = Some capital is pro- 4 = Significant Capital
innovation / and fragmented companies and growth vided mainly by gvts is provided by gvts,
R&D funds funds companies and growth
funds

Multi-fuel 1 = Low level of adoption 3 = Adoption gradually 1 = Regions go their own 4 = Incentives provided
ICE engines (newbuild) increased through mar- way to drive adoption
/ onboard ket pressures
storages

Fuel cell 1 = In its infancy 2 = Available, but slow 1 = Available, but not 2 = First systems in-
technology start due to initial focus main focus of gvt incen- stalled
on multi-fuels tives
Multi-
fuel Batteries 1 = Still demonstration 1 = Gradual uptake in 1 = idem 2 = Uptake incentives
power powered phase short routes (China/Eu- given outside the road
systems motors rope/US) transport

Upgradabil- 1 = Many owners have 1 = Regional adoption 1 = Regional adoption in 0 = Uptake of leap frog-
ity / carried out retrofits to where a full jump in new regions lagging full push ging tech incentivised
Retrofitting their fleets (new paints, technology is difficult to new technology instead
energy saving devices,
new propellers, changed
lighting, better fuel con-
sumption monitoring, etc.)

Recyclable 1 = Adoption at very low 1 = Knowledge building 1 = Adoption difficult in 2 = Push towards a
ships of level increases, but efforts a fragmented world and circular industry, but no
recyclable stay within general indus- remains very low specific ship focus
material try context
Circu-
larity
Carbon 0 = No adoption beyond 1 = Limited uptake as fo- 1 = Limited testing 1 = Push for de-risking if
capture and pilots cus is on alternative fuels LNG route is to remain
storage open
(CCS)

Fuel 1 = Limited adoption 3 = Market based gradu- 2 = Local focus hamperd 3 = Market based gradu-
storage / through lack of fuels al uptake uptake al uptake
Fuelling
equipment
for alterna-
Port tive fuels
meas-
ures On-shore 2 = Solutions and 2 = Only established in 2 = Onshore power 3 = Many ports and
power standards starting to be regions that legislation established in different ships crossing regions
supply adopted to meet legisla- require (such as EU) regions will be equipped with
tion 2025 onshore capabilities
incentivised by carbon
charges

70
INDICATIVE Availability (Now and 2030)
Category Enabler Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

Electrolysis 1 = Low production ca- 2 = Gradual capacity 1 = Progress is limited 3 = Push for green fuels,
solutions pacity increase, but limited by due to focus on biofuels supported by carbon
for green cost hurdle and electricity charges
fuels from
renewable
Green electricity
power-
to-X
technol- Technolo- 0 = No production capaci- 0 = First commercial 0= Idem 1 = First plants built
ogies gies to pro- ty beyond R&D projects plants yet to be built.
duce green
fuels from
biomass/
waste/
carbon

Wind 1 = Only demonstration 2 = Adoption is limited to 1 = Adoption is lagging 2 = Carbon charging in-
Support applications in 2022 the Atlantic route centivises more uptake

Hydrody- 1 = Only environmentally 2 = Shippers push for 1 = Only environmentally 3 = Policy-push for
namics conscious players adopt adoption conscious players adopt adoption through ef-
fective carbon pricing
and higher fuel costs

Ship size 2 = Due to the distribut- 3 = Capacity pooling 2 = Ships available for 3 = Collaboration
Ship
optimisation ed nature of shipping it becomes allowed under different purposes for across shipping com-
optimi-
is challenging to have an competition rulings different regions panies for sharing the
sation
optimal fleet efforts of sea trans-
ports

Fleet 1 = renewal when re- 2 = adoption driven by 2 = Legislation within 3 = Knowledge and
renewal quired competitive pressures particular regions experiences shared on
best GHG reduction

Autono- 0 = No adoption due to 1 = Readiness with first 0 = Close to readiness 1 = Readiness with first
mous ships control concerns tests with first tests tests

JIT Port 1 = Still limited adoption 1 = Little progress has 1 = The fragmented world 2 = Through supply
Calls been made. Vested inter- hampers progress chain pressures adop-
est stands in the way tion increases but lower
priority for gvts

Advanced 4 = Technology available 4 = Technology available 4 = Technology available 4 = Technology available

weather
routing

Commercial 0 = No adoption 1 = Some adoption 1 = Idem 2 = Push but change is

contracts where regulator exerts slow
Oper- pressure
ations
controls Slot Man- 0 = Very low adoption 0 = Still low adoption, 0 = Fractured world 1 = Market ressures
agement because … made implementing such drives change in line
concepts difficult with first adoption

Speed Opti- 2 = Some adoption 3 = Increased adoption 1 = Some adoption due 4 = Increased adoption
misation to different priorities (including push by poli-
cymakers)

GHG 1 = In its initial stage, but 3 = Focus on greening 2 = Focus on greening in 4 = GHG emissions
emissions already a global regula- shipping by society, ESG some parts of the world calculation a must to
calculation tory requirement to report investors and carbon comply with regulation
CO2 emissions annually pricing mechanisms and drive progress

71
INDICATIVE Financial viability (Now and 2030)
Category Enabler Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

LNG 4 = Carriers expand 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

their LNG powered fleet
indicating that LNG is
economically viable

Green LNG 2 = Storage and transport 2 = Competitive in cer- 3 = Locally “competitive” 3 = Capex subsidized to
/ LBG more expensive and lack tain subsectors reach market price level
of scale and scale

Green 2 = Storage and transport 2 = Competitive in cer- 3 = Locally “competitive” 3 = Capex subsidized to
methane more expensive and lack tain subsectors reach market price level
of scale and scale

Biodiesel 3 = Less cost effective 3 = Less competitive 3 = Local incentives 4 = With a stronger
than HFO and LNG focus on biofuel pro-
duction, and fuelling
Multi-
infrastructure financial
fuels
viability improves

Green 2 = It is very expensive to 2 = Broader adaptation 3 = Only regional incenti- 3 = Policy support helps
methanol produce green methanol brings costs down, but vised developments to scale and bring costs
remains expensive down, but additional in-
centives remain required

Green 1 = Producing green 1 = Idem, pertaining high 1 = Idem, pertaining high 2 = Ammonia production
ammonia ammonia cost two to four system costs due to low system costs due to low is scaling up which brings
timeslxii more than conven- overall well-to-wake fuel overall well-to-wake fuel some cost reductions,
tional ammonia efficiency efficiency but additional incentives
remain required

Green 1 = Technology not yet de- 1 = Low value, high initial 1 = Low value, high initial 2 = More volume with
hydrogen veloped fully in combination system costs low viability system costs low viability medium viability
with large scale fuel cells

Green 2 = Lack of scale; battery 2 = Remains niche due 3 = Increased volumes 3 = Electrification is
electricity capacity to high costs of fully electric very short on the way to become
distance inland waterway a standard in inland
ships in regions that pro- short distance waterway
vide (green) shore power shipping
Other
power Nuclear 0 = Low viability due to 0 = Idem 1 = Idem, but some coun- 1 = Idem but plays a role
sources expensive technology with tries/ regions are willing in shipping either as a
little reduction potential to incentivise primary energy source to
produce alternative fuels
or as molten salt reactors
onboard ocean-going ships
that do not enter ports.

Market-based 4 = The concept is an 3 = Idem 2 = Idem as some coun- 4 = Idem

mechanism enabler of decarboni- tries will protect their own
(MBM) -Euro- sation interest and will not apply
pean Trading MBM, ETS, or levies
Scheme (ETS)
and levy
Regul-
ations
EEDI/EEXI 4 = The concept is an en- 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem
abler of decarbonisation

CII 4 = The concept is an en- 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

abler to drive gradual but
continuous change

72
INDICATIVE Financial viability (Now and 2030)
Category Enabler Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

Gradual 4 = The concept is an 4 = Costs can be ab- 4 = Costs can be ab- 4 = Costs can be
reduction of enabler to drive gradual sorbed sorbed absorbed
carbon con- but continuous change
tent in fuel

Incentives 1 = Generally low due to 2 = De-risked technolo- 1 = De-risked technolo- 3 = Massive expansion
for green lack of scale gies become investable gies become investable in scale which brings
fuel in OECD corridors with local gvt guarantees new asset classes in
production the financial markets

Incentives 0 = High risk and overrun 2 = MBM, ETS and other 1 = Fear of local penal- 4 = Financial and rating
for green cost for changes in de- Levies tip the balance for ties enables investability institutions have ade-
Financ-
shipbuilding sign with little option for investability quate policies and instru-
ing
recovery ments in place to enable
clean ship building

Green 1 = Mainly governments 3 = Idem plus some very 3 = Idem plus some na- 3 = Idem plus some large
innovation / through subsidising insti- large companies in parts tional champions brought companies throughout the
R&D funds tutes and start-ups of the value chain as well in by gvt (including EU) value chain, incentivised
as IMO incentives by tax breaks

Multi-fuel 2 = Viable but still expen- 3 = Scale brings price re- 2 = No significant change 4 = Scale brought cost
ICE engines sive duction and part of costs in scale. Difficult to pass and prices for multi-fuel
/ onboard can be passed through through costs engines down with full
storages pass through

Fuel cell 1 = Still in R&D stage 2 = De-risked technolo- 1 = Fragmented financial 3 = Financial and rat-
technology gy, MBM, ETS and other markets keep invest- ing institutions have
Levies tip makes for ments low and local adequate policies and
Multi- investability in the OECD instruments in place to
fuel corridor enable investment
power
systems Batteries 1 = Low volume high price 2 = Investable in niche 2 = idem 3 = Investable in niche
powered markets markets with strong gvt
motors support

Upgradabil- 2 = Medium financial via- 1 = Expected longer term 2 = Only under gvt in- 3= Push for retrofitting /
ity / bility as the current high regulations tightening centives upgrading in worldwide
Retrofitting fuel costs there are many makes financing difficult fleet
retrofit options that have a
short payback period.

Recyclable 1 = Financial viability is 1 = Financing does not 1 = Idem 2 = Push for circularity
ships of low in 2022 specifically reward this which benefits from
recyclable beyond overall cost con- incentives
material tainment
Circu-
larity
Carbon 0 = Financially not viable 1 = Financial viability 0 = Financial viability 1 = Financial viability
capture and remains a challenge needs gvt support determined by emission
storage without shipping falling charges
(CCS) under an ETS

Fuel storage 2 = Low number of instal- 4 = becomes natural- 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

/ Fuelling lations ly part of overall fuel
equipment infrastructure finance by
for alternative companies
Port fuels
meas-
ures
On-shore 1 = Extra costs for some 4 = Minor costs in over- 4 = Idem 4 = Idem
power ships making visits to all costs and easily to
supply ports in specific regions incorporate in financing
structures

73
INDICATIVE Financial viability (Now and 2030)
Category Enabler Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

Electrolysis 2 = In use for other sec- 1 = Overall low well-to- 1 = Idem 2 = Gvt incentives may
solutions tors and different higher wake conversion efficien- help somewhat to over-
for green value applications cies limits financability come structural cost
fuels from due to limited cost pass issue.
Green renewable through
power- electricity
to-X
technol- Technologies 0 = Needs to come out of 0 = Tech Readiness Lev- 0 = Idem 2 = Idem, with strong gvt
ogies to produce R&D budgets / grants el 9 required for financing support
green fuels
from bio-
mass/waste/
carbon

Wind 0 = Financial viability is 3 = Cost relatively modest 3 = Idem 3 = Idem

Support unclear in overall new build cost
and will be financeable
within normal constructs

Hydrody- 4 = Technology econom- 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

namics ically viable as it pro-
duces cost efficiencies

Ship Ship size 3 = Different ship’s sizes 3 = Brings fuel consump- 2 = Reduced financial 4 = Closer collabora-
optimi- optimisation used for specific purposes tion reduction viability due to negative tion improves load
sation impact on trade volumes factor and profitability
caused by fragmentation

Fleet 3 = Financially viable 3 = Idem, costs can be 3 = Idem, costs can 4 = Idem, costs can be
renewal when new ships are absorbed by the sectors be absorbed by niche fully absorbed by the
bought applicable markets market

Autono- 4 = Expected to produce 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

mous ships cost efficiencies in fuel
consumption and crew

JIT Port 4 = Technology has not 4 = Minor investments 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

Calls been tested in real life, required.
but solution produces sig-
nificant fuel consumption/
cost savings

Advanced 4 = Short payback period 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

weather
routing

Commercial 4 = Yields cross industry 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

contracts benefits
Oper-
ations
controls Slot Man- 4 = Financially viable 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem
agement concept

Speed Opti- 4 = Saves fuel and emis- 4 = Idem 4 = Idem 4 = Idem

misation sions, no financing of
investment required

GHG 2 = All owners and opera- 3 = Essential to get ESG 3 = Essential to get gvt 4 = Regulatory require-
emissions tors are required to do this funding licenses ments, standardized
calculation regardless of how they accurate GHG reporting
do it. They don’t need to driving gradual GHG
invest in an expensive reductions
system

74
Appendix 8: Usable enablers now and per scenario in 2030

Category Now Swells (2030) Storms (2030) Clear Sky (2030)

Multifuels Biodiesel Biodiesel Biodiesel Biodiesel

LNG LNG LNG Green methanol
LNG

Other power
– – Green electricity Green electricity
sources

Regulations CII Gradual reduction of CII Gradual reduction of

carbon content in fuel carbon content in fuel
MBM
EEDI / EEXI
MBM CII
EEDI / EEXI
CII EEDI / EEXI
EEDI / EEXI MBM

Financing – Green innovation / Green innovation / Incentives for green

R&D funds R&D funds fuel production
Incentives for green
shipbuilding
Green innovation /
R&D funds

Multi-fuel Power – Multi-fuel ICE engines / – Batteries powered

systems onboard storages motors
Upgradability /
retro-fitting
Multi-fuel ICE engines /
onboard storages

Circularity – – – –

Port measures – On-shore power supply On-shore power supply On-shore power supply
Fuel storage / Fuelling Fuel storage / Fuelling Fuel storage / Fuelling
equipment for equipment for equipment for
alternative fuels alternative fuels alternative fuels

Green power-to-X
– – – –
technologies

Ship optimisation Hydrodynamics Hydrodynamics Hydrodynamics Wind support

Ship size optimisation Ship size optimisation Fleet renewal
Ship size optimisation
Hydrodynamics

Operations Speed optimisation Slot management Slot management JIT Port calls
controls Advanced weather Speed optimisation Speed optimisation Slot management
routing Advanced weather Advanced weather GHG emissions
routing routing calculations
Speed optimisation
Advanced weather
routing

Usable within limits Usable at scale

75
Appendix 9: Long list of suggestions

Suggestions for stakeholder in nology companies, offer a broad range of ship-related

the marine fuel value chain enablers that can help to reduce carbon emissions.
The supply of alternative fuels is the current bottle-
neck across the cluster of critical supply chains for de- • Accelerate development of multi-fuel upgradable
carbonisation. The ramp-up of the maritime fuel value ship engines
chain requires a new focus and incentives for renew-
able energy producers, refining technology and infra- • Invest further in experiments for wind-supported
structure manufacturers, ports as energy hubs etc. shipping which is a support that can reduce CO2
emissions significantly
• Significantly increase R&D funding for hydrogen
fuel cell electric motors to prepare for a potential • Ensure that newly built and refitted ships also
step change adopt the latest improvements on hydrodynamic
and thermodynamic efficiency and contra-rotating
• Support R&D in battery technology to reduce size propellers and propulsion efficiency devices
and prices of batteries for short sea and inland
waterways shipping • Encourage collaboration among shipping
companies to jointly establish fleets that have
• Support the acceleration of production and supply ship sizes that corresponds to the needs of
of green ammonia, methanol/ethanol, and hydrogen the transport buyers and helps reducing CO2
emissions
• Invest in green LNG development
• Build capacity in circular shipbuilding
• Use grey LNG as interim fuel until step-change
solutions are available not absorbing too much • Financial institutions need to change their
and too long financial funds - possibly only till 2030 financing practices to allow for more flexibility to
include new green solutions without penalties
• Launch studies to identify ideal locations of fuelling
spots for methanol, ammonia, hydrogen and • Ensure high operational efficiency over the life-
biofuel, considering also floating refuelling solutions cycle by simulating operational conditions on
actual voyages and weather conditions in the
• Establish fuel infrastructure for green fuels, also concept design phase
leveraging the Clydebank Declaration for green
corridors; ports’ role as energy nodes is growing Increase competitive edge with the ability to future-
proof the next generation green ship designs with the
• Encourage ports that are involved in inland and help of simulation of the operational profile
short sea shipping to provide electric power supply
for battery powered ships
Suggestions for stakeholder of
the maritime operational value chain
• Strengthen renewable energy / green electricity
supply and strengthen electricity grids around ports Shipowners, ship operators and charterers have
a range of enablers they can use to reduce carbon
• Aggressively expand biofuel production and emissions during steaming
distribution capabilities, increase the use of
domestic waste and sewage • Make speed optimisation practices (slow/optimised
steaming) the norm and change contracts that
stand in the way
Suggestions for stakeholders in
the shipbuilding value chain
• Capture the potential of route optimisation to avoid
Ship designers, shipbuilders, engine, and equipment adverse conditions, like bad weather (weather
manufacturers, as well as software vendors and tech- routing)

76
• Encourage the telecommunication industry to • Support R&D in decarbonisation and establish
(collaboratively) expand the global coverage to collaboration mechanisms around concrete
support data exchange across the maritime industry decarbonisation projects that foster early
deployment mechanisms for green solutions
• Ports need to support the change of practices to
allow for better utilisation of port infrastructure • Ensure that funding for R&D and implementation
through just-in-time arrivals and slot management is well spread across cluster of maritime value
chains and decarbonisation enablers
• Ports to live up to their role as information nodes
to support digital solutions that improve the • Promote extensive knowledge exchange across
synchronisation of flows the stakeholders of the cluster of the critical
maritime value chains fuel, ship, operation
• As all ports are not started in digitalization, and
comprehensive implementation of just-in-time • Incentivise first movers in the field of
and slot management practices is likely to take a decarbonisation across the ecosystem
long time, probably decades, the industry needs
to immediately collaborate to improve port call • Avoid regulatory fragmentation on global level, for
scheduling even in cases where ports are not example across regions, sectors and the modes
providing their support for just-in-time arrivals of transportation and instead push for global
decarbonisation and energy transformation strategies
• Shipowners, charterers, and cargo owners need
to collaborate to change the shipping contracts to • Apply measures to support less developed nations
incentivise optimisation in their decarbonisation efforts

• Invest in re-skilling the maritime workforce • Ensure maximum clarity in respect to future
ensuring they have a higher level of awareness regulation and programmes and consider an
and the skillset to support the decarbonisation approved ‘green fuel’ list to “de-risk” investments
efforts
• Ensure that the IMO International Code of Safety
• A carbon tracker that allows to visualise the GHG for Ships using Gases or other Low-flashpoint
emissions of every ship for the industry and even Fuels (IGF Code) are enforced to mitigate the risk
the general public could help to show status and to ships, their crews and the environment, given
progress of decarbonisation in shipping the nature of the fuels involved

• Use the EU emissions trading system (ETS) for

Suggestions specific for policymakers
ships calling at EU ports as reference for a global
Regulation is critical as policies and programmes can mechanism but close gaps and impede double
direct and accelerate decarbonisation efforts. Regula- counting
tors can be bridgebuilders and orchestrators as e.g.
demonstrated with the initiative on IMO CARES.xlvi • Avoid ETS fragmentation, as the EU and UK are
Policymakers should continuously consult private building out their maritime ETS and China its land
sector players and subject matter expertsxlvii to ensure based ETS
refinement of their approach and measures which in-
clude: • Set and gradually increase minimum blend
requirements for zero-emission marine fuel in the
• Spur the uptake of decarbonisation technologies spirit of the FuelEU maritime initiative
and alternative fuels by e.g. IMO interim
decarbonisation targets and metrics (e.g., CII), as • Consider fleet renewal guidelines not obligations
well as life-cycle analysis (LCA) of emissions and help to ensure that financing is available

• Review the IMO data collection system and lower • Further the public debate on the security of using
the threshold of 5000 gross tonnage nuclear as one potential energy source for deep-
sea shipping

77
Appendix 10: Initiator, authors, and contributors

Initiator Contributing companies

Nordic West Office is Helsinki-based think tank and Aalto University
global affairs consultancy, specialized in scenarios
Blue Sky Maritime Coalition
and strategic foresight. NWO helps companies to
navigate the changing political, economic and tech- Carnival
nological environment by bringing together high-level
European Freight & Logistics Leader’s Forum (F&L)
international expertise in business, academia, poli-
tics, communications, and the legal field. Finnlines
Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation
Authors Hamburg Port Authority
Wolfgang Lehmacher is operating partner at Anchor Hapag-Lloyd
Group and advisor at Topan AG. The board member,
International Chamber of Shipping
executive advisor and former head of supply chain
and transport industries at the World Economic Forum International Seaways
as well as President and CEO Emeritus of GeoPost Meri Aura
Intercontinental is advisory board member of The
Logistics and Supply Chain Management Society, Meyer Turku Oy
ambassador of The European Freight and Logistics NAPA
Leaders’ Forum, advisor to GlobalSF and founding
Nokia
member of the think tanks Logistikweisen and NEXST.
Nordic West Office
Mikael Lind is the world’s first Professor of Maritime Rauma Marine Construction
Informatics and is engaged at Chalmers, Sweden,
and is also Senior Strategic Research Advisor at Re- UPM
search Institutes of Sweden (RISE). He has initiated World Ocean Council
and headed a substantial part of several open innova-
Wärtsilä
tion initiatives related to ICT for sustainable transports
of people and goods and serves as an expert for World
Economic Forum, Europe’s Digital Transport Logistic
Forum (DTLF), and UN/CEFACT. He is the co-editor
of the first bookxlviii of maritime informatics and the fol-
low-up bookxlix recently published by Springer.

78
Key experts Contributing individuals
Jeremy Bentham is the Co-Chair (Scenarios) at Aden, Janin, Senior Director Sustainability, Hapag-
World Energy Council and retired member of strategy Lloyd AG
leadership team at Shell. Leading scenarios expert.
Previously Head of Shell Scenarios Team and Vice Aggarwal, Rahul, Head of Global Enterprise
President of Global Business Environment at Shell Marketing, Nokia
International.
Åstrand, Kent, Strategy Roadmap Development
Wim Thomas is energy scenario expert with 30 + Manager, Wärtsilä
years of experience in Shell. Non-Executive Director
at MARIN, a world leading maritime research institute Boque, Ingrid, Officer Global Strategic Networks,
in the Netherlands. Hamburg Port Authority

Kirsi Tikka has over 30 years of shipping experience, Burke, William, Chief Maritime Officer, Carnival
member of several boards and advisor to maritime Corporation
start-ups, former Executive Vice President of Ameri-
can Bureau of Shipping. Cummins, David, President & CEO, Blue Sky
Maritime Coalition
Theo Notteboom is Professor at the University of
Antwerpen. Professor in port and maritime economics Dietrich, Matthias, Senior Director Strategic
and management with about 30 years of experience Programs, Hapag-Lloyd AG
in this area in Europe and the Far East. Has published
widely on port and maritime economics. Doepel, Thomas, Chief Operating Officer (COO),
Finnlines
Steven Freis is an economist with expertise in en-
ergy, climate change and finance. Senior Associate Dubielzig, Dr., Frank, Director Sustainability, Hapag-
Fellow at INET–Oxford, Nonresident Senior Fellow Lloyd AG
at the Peterson Institute for International Economics,
and former chief economist at Shell and the UK De- Engelberg, Anton, Junior Analyst, Nordic West
partment of Energy and Climate Change. Office

Evans, Philip, Secretary General, European Freight

Reviewers
& Logistics Leader’s Forum Leaders’ Forum (F&L)
Hoffmann, Jan, Head, Trade Logistics Branch, DTL,
UNCTAD Forss, Mikko, Executive Vice President, Design
Solutions, NAPA
Petersen, Moritz, Assistant Professor of Sustainable
Supply Chain Practice & Director of CSLS, Kuehne Haeflinger, John, Senior Vice President,
Logistics University, Hamburg Sustainability and Maritime Policy, Carnival
Corporation
Singh, Sukhjit, Head of School (Maritime Science),
University of Gibraltar Haraldson, Sandra, Senior Researcher, Research
Institutes of Sweden (RISE)
Watson, Richard T., Regents Professor and J. Rex
Fuqua Distinguished Chair for Internet Strategy, Heinimaa, Jyrki, CEO of Rauma Marine
University of Georgia Constructions Oy and Chairman of Finnish Marine
Industries, Rauma Marine Construction

Hellyer, Sue, Manager Logistics, Fremantle Ports

Herlin, Staffan, Head of Group Marketing, Sales and

Customer Service, Finnlines

79
Hölsä, Jukka, VP, Logistics, UPM Tamminen Sonja, Project Manager, Nordic West
Office
Karstensen, Marit, Marketing Director, Wärtsilä
Tenenbaum, Lina, Sustainability Engineer,
Kuttan, Sanjay, Chief Technology Officer, Global International Seaways
Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation
Thatcher, Dominique, Digital Leader Logistics
Lam, Fai, Head of Transportation Marketing, Nokia Solutions, Fremantle Ports

Laurilehto, Mika, CSO, Rauma Marine Construction Thiel, Andreia, Head of Strategy, Hamburg Port
Authority
Macnab, Audrey, Secretariat, European Freight &
Logistics Leader’s Forum Leaders’ Forum (F&L) van der Beeke, Adam, Environmental Advisor,
Fremantle Ports
Morgante, Andrea, VP Strategy, Marine Power,
Wärtsilä Vehviläinen, Antti, Senior advisor, Jeito

Neil, Stuart, Director of Strategy and Walls, Riinue, Director, Business Development,
Communications, International Chamber of Shipping Meriaura

Nugent, William, Vice President, Head of Ship

Operations, International Seaways

Pakkanen, Pekka, Executive Vice President, NAPA

Penttilä, Risto E. J., CEO, Nordic West Office

Pippingskold, Tom, CFO, Finnlines

Platten, Guy, Secretary General, International

Chamber of Shipping

Pulli, Tapani, Managing Director, Meyer Turku Oy

Ramakrishnan, Venkatesh, Head of Maritime

vertical, Nokia Enterprise

Romanoff, Jani, Associate Professor, Aalto

University

Rytkölä, Ilkka, Program Director, Meyer Turku Oy

Saari, Jessica, Director, Business Development,

Meriaura

Solon, Derek, SVP & Chief Commercial Officer,

International Seaways

Strang, Tom, Senior Vice President, Maritime Affairs,

Carnival Corporation

Sundman, Stefan, VP, Public Affairs, UPM

80
End notes
i
https://www.ics-shipping.org/publication/fuelling-the-fourth-propulsion-revolution-summary-report/
ii
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/content/2021/09/Call-to-Action-for-Shipping-Decarbonization.pdf
iii
According to trade data from Lloyd’s List Intelligence
iv
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/
v
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/getting-to-zero-coalition
vi
https://www.gcformd.org/
vii
https://www.zerocarbonshipping.com/about/
viii
https://www.bluesky-maritime.org/
ix
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/PartnershipsProjects/Pages/IMO-CARES.aspx
x
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?do=groupDetail.
groupDetail&groupID=2869
xi
http://mission-innovation.net/missions/shipping/
xii
https://marine-offshore.bureauveritas.com/magazine/client-corner-decarbonizing-transport-through-fit-55
xiii
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/imo-mepc77-fails-to-revise-current-ghg-target-for-2050/
xiv
https://www.ics-shipping.org/press-release/shipping-industry-sets-out-bold-plan-to-global-regulator-to-deliver-net-zero-
by-2050/
xv
https://cms.zerocarbonshipping.com/media/uploads/documents/MMMCZCS_Industry-Transition-Strategy_Oct_2021.pdf
xvi
Fuel includes all forms of energy that powers ships, including electricity or nuclear
xvii
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28439159
xviii
https://www.lr.org/en/insights/articles/how-can-nuclear-support-shippings-route-to-zero-carbon/
xix
https://www.lrfoundation.org.uk/
xx
https://unctad.org/news/maritime-informatics-emerging-discipline-digitally-connected-efficient-sustainable-and
xxi
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/scrubber-alternative-can-now-capture-carbon-emissions-on-vessels
xxii
https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/renewables-jobs-to-grow-fivefold-globally-by-2050-as-fossil-fuel-
industry-shrinks-study/2-1-1044565
xxiii
https://www.ship-technology.com/news/proman-stena-methanol-retrofit-solution/
xxiv
https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=2663
xxv
https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/GIA-just-in-time-hires.pdf
xxvi
https://www.bimco.org/contracts-and-clauses/bimco-clauses/current/just-in-time-arrival-clause-for-voyage-charter-
parties-2021
xxvii
https://maritimeinformatics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/An-Expanded-JIT-Approach.pdf
xxviii
https://applied.economist.com/articles/welcome-to-the-appointment-economy
xxix
https://unctad.org/news/ports-tomorrow-measuring-digital-maturity-empower-sustainable-port-operations-and-business
xxx
https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2022/03/10/maersk-engages-in-strategic-partnerships-to-scale-green-
methanol-production
xxxi
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/
xxxii
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/getting-to-zero-coalition
xxxiii
https://www.gcformd.org/
xxxiv
https://www.zerocarbonshipping.com/about/
xxxv
https://www.bluesky-maritime.org/
xxxvi
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/PartnershipsProjects/Pages/IMO-CARES.aspx
xxxvii
https://www.cozev.org/

81
xxxviii
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?do=groupDetail.
groupDetail&groupID=2869
xxxix
http://mission-innovation.net/missions/shipping/
xl
https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/MEPC-75th-session.aspx
xli
https://safety4sea.com/maritime-makes-rd-funding-proposals-to-decarbonize-shipping-in-developing-countries/
xlii
https://maritime.lr.org/MEPC-78-Summary-Report
xliii
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/shipping-industry-frustrated-by-governments-rejection-of-rd-fund-to-catalyse-
sector-decarbonisation/
xliv
https://safety4sea.com/ics-refusal-of-rd-fund-wastes-opportunity-for-rapid-transition-to-green-fuels/
xlv
https://unctad.org/news/decarbonizing-maritime-sector-mobilizing-coordinated-action-industry-using-ecosystems-approach
xlvi
http://imocares.imo.org/
xlvii
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/4-ways-tradetech-policy-regulation/
xlviii
https://maritimeinformatics.org/2020/10/maritime-informatics/
xlix
https://maritimeinformatics.org/2021/03/maritime-informatics-additional-perspectives-and-applications/
l
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/imo-mepc77-fails-to-revise-current-ghg-target-for-2050/
li
https://www.ics-shipping.org/press-release/shipping-industry-sets-out-bold-plan-to-global-regulator-to-deliver-net-
zero-by-2050/
lii
https://www.sciencedirect.com/referencework/9780123847201/encyclopedia-of-biodiversity
https://stirlingdesign.fr/presses/conferences/stirling_design_paper_ssd.pdf
liii
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/dual-fuel-engine
https://marineengineeringonline.com/dual-fuel-marine-engines-used-board-ships/
liv
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/combustibles-energy-content/
lv
https://www.petro-online.com/news/biofuel-industry-news/22/breaking-news/what-is-green-fuel-and-will-it-replace-petrol/55123
https://www.man-es.com/discover/decarbonization-glossary---man-energy-solutions/green-fuels
lvi
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage
lvii
https://media.rff.org/documents/CCS_101.pdf
lviii
https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/sustainable-ports-as-energy-hubs
lix
https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/lowering-containership-emissions-through-just-in-time-arrivals/
lx
https://theloadstar.com/european-parliament-rejects-proposals-for-eu-ets-update/
lxi
https://grist.org/energy/green-methanol-maersk-shipping-fuel/
lxii
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8

82