Ship Managers Propose Revisions to IMO’s Net-Zero Framework
Ship managers have expressed concerns about the International Maritime Organization’s future net-zero framework and have suggested concrete changes to make the proposals more effective.
Acting on behalf of the global ship management sector, InterManager, the international association for ship managers, has submitted a proposal to the next meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC83) to suggest essential changes.
The submission warns that, in its current form, the greenhouse gas (GHG) proposal doesn’t properly account for the involvement of a third-party International Safety Management (ISM) Manager.
Highlighting that roughly 20% of the global fleet is operated by a third-party technical ship manager as the ISM Manager, the submission asserts the need for further refining to make it applicable in practice and to avoid future national implementing acts being open to inevitable and avoidable litigation by ship managers.
Compared to the charterer and shipowner, the ship manager has no material influence over the GHG intensity of a ship. Ship managers have no say regarding the type of engine powering the managed ship, nor are sails, solar, fuel cells, or other installations installed on board. Such choices are decided exclusively by the shipowner.
“Ship managers are not consulted and, in addition, do not influence which fuels are procured and supplied to any managed ships, neither contractually nor in practice. The matter is negotiated between the shipowner and the charterer and agreed in the charter party agreement for the ship, together with speed and consumption, the remaining significant parameters impacting on its GHG intensity,” the submission states.
However, the proposed draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI on the IMO net-zero framework suggest making ship managers responsible for GHG emissions penalties. InterManager says this misidentifies the ship manager as the polluter to be held responsible and penalized, which, as well as being factually wrong, could lead to legal challenges.
Further, by assigning liability for compliance fees to the ship manager, they are forced to ask shipowners to provide upfront financial security to cover potential insolvency risks or defaults. This forces significant amounts of equity to be tied up in security, limiting cash flow available for growth or investment in new ships.
