The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism may be insufficient to stimulate short-term uptake of clean hydrogen-based marine fuels and threatens decarbonisation targets, hydrogen industry associations and environmental groups said.
Delegates approved a proposed mechanism at the IMO's 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting on 11 April. The proposal will be put to an adoption vote at the next MEPC in October after which the rules could enter into force in 2027.
The IMO said its "net-zero framework is the first in the world to combine mandatory emissions limits and GHG pricing across an entire sector".
But the agreement does not go far enough to drive extensive uptake of clean hydrogen and derivatives, such as ammonia and e-methanol, as the mechanism's design will encourage use of LNG and biofuels instead, at least in the short-term, according to industry participants and environmental bodies.
"Delegates have agreed a measure that may lock in the use of environmentally destructive biofuels and LNG" instead of providing the incentives necessary "to jump start the transition" to e-fuels based on renewable hydrogen, said the Skies and Seas Hydrogen-fuels Accelerator Coalition's (Sasha) founder Aoife O'Leary.
Brussels-based environmental group Transport & Environment (T&E) took a similar stance. While the IMO's agreement "creates a momentum for alternative marine fuels… it is the forest-destroying first generation biofuels that will get the biggest push for the next decade," the group's shipping director Faig Abbasov said. "Without better incentives for sustainable e-fuels from green hydrogen, it is impossible to decarbonise this heavy polluting industry."
The criticism is directed primarily at the CO2 prices set under the two-tier system. The tier 2 price of $380/t of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) could encourage a shift away from diesel or other "high-emission fuels", but this would likely be to "relatively affordable biofuels" rather than "significantly cleaner alternatives such as green hydrogen-derived fuels", T&E said.
Industry body the Green Hydrogen Organisation (GH2) noted that reducing the penalties to $100/t CO2e price for vessels that meet "base" targets could encourage companies using "LNG and more carbon intensive fuels" to "pay to pollute rather than comply over the next few years". The group criticised the lack of "a universal levy with a meaningful carbon price".
It will be key to ensure that all emissions, including methane leakage, are comprehensively accounted for and that "direct and indirect land-use change from biofuels" is factored in, GH2 said.
But despite the criticism, GH2 said the agreement "sends an important signal to green fuels producers to go forward with their projects".
"The greenest fuels will be able to generate credits… which they can sell," the group said, adding that the IMO will agree "a mechanism to reward zero or near-zero emission ships by March 2027".
This could drive an increase in orders for dual-fuel vessels that could eventually transition to hydrogen-based fuels, it said.
Off target
Some groups, including T&E, the Clean Shipping Coalition and the Global Maritime Forum, argue that the shipping industry will fail to meet emissions reduction targets with the proposed framework.
The measures will "at best" provide emissions reductions of 10pc by 2030 and 60pc by 2040, far below the IMO's 2023 commitments to 30pc and 80pc, respectively, T&E said.
The failure to send stronger signals for uptake of hydrogen-based fuels puts at risk a target of reaching 5pc fuel use that is zero- or near-zero emission by 2030 and the industry's entire 2050 net-zero goal, the Global Maritime Forum said.
Other International shipping organisations, such as the International Chamber of Shipping and the European Community Shipowners Association, voiced support for the agreement although they acknowledged that it is "not perfect".
