According to this consultant, many ships will need to be recycled as a result of the International Maritime Organization (IMO)’s new carbon intensity indicator (CII) rule.
And there isn’t enough recycling capacity to handle them all. Far East recyclers have the most capacity, as we know. But these yards are not certified to recycle EU ships, that must be recycled at a yard following the Waste Shipment Regulation of the EU. There are only six such yards in the EU; Turkey, an OECD state may also be used.
Recycling ships has been fraught with problems for years, mostly of the social kind; but now yards will be held accountable environmentally also.
It’s a good thing for the long run, but planning is essential if you are wanting to recycle a ship.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has issued their rules for the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), which is intended to combat global warming by reducing carbon emissions. It’s been years in the making.
But some of those affected by the regulation think there are flaws in the index which can produce some unintended consequences.
We know that many ships are chartered– they are operated by firms or people who are not their owners. Charter contracts determine how the ship will be operated and how the ship owner will be paid for allowing the use of his ship. But the contracts may allow the charterer to operate the ship in a way that reduces the CII score and causes the ship to fall into a lower class. Perhaps the ship falls into Class E which says the ship should be withdrawn from commerce– sentenced to the shipbreaker.
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), a non-governmental group that offers clauses for contracts addressing numerous international shipping issues, has prepared a contract clause for chartering contracts. This is a useful starting point, because BIMCO contracts and clauses are often used as a starting point for making a charter contract. Use of the BIMCO contracts or clauses is totally voluntary.
The article below explains some of the issues that can arise between charterers and owners, with equations to boot. The essence of the problem is that the index is based on ship capacity, not cargo carried. So sailing empty miles improves your score on the index two ways– first because sailing light burns less fuel, and second because the miles add to the denominator of the measure, reducing it. The examples given show the effect.
Many feel the index should be based on carrying cargo. And some believe the BIMCO clause will not be workable in contracts, and will not use it. But the problem remains of how to divide responsibility between ship owner and charterer for managing the CII score.
I tend to believe any rule is better than nothing. And I think charterers and shipowners will work out how to manage the contract problem. As for empty sailing or sitting in port, I don’t think anyone wants to sail without a paying cargo, or suffer delays even to improve the index. So everyone, owners and charterers, will continue to fill their ships when they can, and sail shorter routes when they can, simply because it’s expensive to operate the ship you’ve chartered; you have to earn a profit at it.
For all the complaining, the CII is still a good thing. We will have to see if it can be tweaked to everyone’s satisfaction.
The new measurements of carbon intensity for ships have gone into effect. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) created new regulations that went into effect on November 1, 2022. One of the measures is the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), intended for existing ships. It’s calculated as CO2 emitted per unit of ship cargo carrying capacity and nautical miles sailed, says DNV, classification society for maritime and an assurance and risk management expert (What is the CII?)
There are two different measures used in the calculation. One is the Annual Efficiency Ratio (AER), the annual emissions per ton mile, for segments where cargo is weight critical. The other is cgDist, emissions per gross ton-miles, for volume-critical cargo.
One of the criticisms of the measure is that it uses distance sailed rather than anything related to the amount of cargo. Actually, as of today, a similar rating using actual cargo carried, the EEOI, can only be reported on a voluntary basis, and may not be substituted for the CII. This has provoked some stern criticism from the large carriers that are heavily loaded, such as Maersk and MSC, though they will comply with the reporting regulation.
But these carriers and others have called for an early reform to the measure, to prevent a ship logging empty miles in order to improve its CII. Emissions are lower when running empty, since you’re not moving the weight of the cargo. So a tanker, for instance, can improve its CII ratio by deadheading back to its pickup point, rather than moving another cargo.
But these concerns are nits compared to the concept of rating all ships by their carbon emissions. These measures begin the process of making actual emissions available to the public, so shippers can make a choice to lower emissions.
One of the ways to reduce emissions is to sail more slowly, or slow steam. Gary Howard’s article quotes MSC, the large container line, that the new CII will cause a 7% to 10% loss of capacity due to slower steaming.
It’s an interesting number. It forces shippers to accept longer voyages before getting cargoes, a clear tradeoff between emissions and prompter delivery. For many customers this will not be an issue; they can alter resupply schedules if the reliability of getting it at the predicted time is high. However, reliability of shipments is another serious problem for container carriers— it’s down around 40% for most carriers. Most of the delay of recent shipments is due to blanked sailings, and to congestion loading and unloading in some major ports. Blanked sailings don’t affect the CII for ships. But congestion delays at ports cause fuel to be burned and push the CII up even if the ships don’t move many miles. the fuel is still used.
I think introducing the CII is a very good idea. True, it could be improved; but we have to start somewhere.