- If IMO aims to maintain CII as a meaningful measure to incentivise shipping’s decarbonisation, a thorough review of the formula is necessary.
- A deeper dive into different shipping segments revealed a complex interplay of factors affecting CII ratings, making it difficult to pinpoint the main adverse variables universally.
The Royal Belgian Shipowners’ Association (KBRV) released a study that investigated issues with the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) formula.
The study, titled Evaluating the Carbon Intensity Indicator: Challenges and Recommendations for Improvements, was done in collaboration with four master’s students from the Antwerp Management School (AMS).
As part of their thesis project, the research conducted by the students included a comprehensive literature review, a qualitative analysis, and a quantitative analysis using data from Belgian-controlled ships.
The following are the key findings and recommendations of the study:
Key Findings
Both literature review and qualitative analysis identified three variables with the most adverse impact on CII ratings:
- Waiting Time: Time spent idling or waiting in ports or awaiting orders.
- Number of Ports of Call: The frequency with which a ship docks at different ports.
- Distance Travelled: The total nautical miles covered by the vessel.
The quantitative analysis confirmed the significant impact of these variables. However, a deeper dive into different shipping segments revealed a complex interplay of factors affecting CII ratings, making it difficult to pinpoint the main adverse variables universally.
For example, container vessels are highly affected by the number of port calls. An increased number of stops results in a worsened CII rating.
When comparing three Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC) with similar distances travelled, waiting times, and number of port calls, differences in CII ratings still occurred. This could be attributed to external factors beyond anyone’s control, such as adverse weather conditions.
For LPG carriers, there was a clear correlation between waiting days and CII ratings. Carriers that traded on routes with major port congestions – thus longing waiting time – scored lower than a sister ship with identical design efficiencies on less busy operating routes.
Recommendations
These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of CII ratings. If the IMO aims to maintain the CII as a meaningful measure to incentivise shipping’s decarbonisation, a thorough review of the formula is necessary, taking into account the various factors beyond the control of both shipowners and charterers that influence the CII ratings. At a higher level, the scope and goal of the CII within the basket of measures needs to be reassessed as well.
Shipping is the most efficient way of transporting goods, emitting the lowest GHG per ton of transported cargo. Addressing the carbon efficiency of the sector requires the effort of every stakeholder involved, from shipowners and charterers to port authorities and customers. Placing the responsibility for a ship’s efficiency solely on the shipowner does not accurately address the complexities and other influencing factors that exist.
Did you Subscribe to our daily newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!
Source: Royal Belgian Shipowners’ Association
