News / Call for consistency in ocean shipping emissions calculation

© Daliscot55

The Loadstar has reported how a lack of standardisation in air cargo emissions calculation and reporting had led to allegations of ‘greenwashing’ and confusion for shippers and forwarders. – however, aviation is not the only sector crying out for consistency.  

Recently, CEO of Vespucci Maritime Lars Jensen highlighted the disparity between ocean carriers OOCL and CMA CGM’s CO2 calculations for a sailing from Singapore to Hamburg on their joint Ocean Alliance service, of 288kg and 1,010kg respectively.  

He wrote: “OOCL say they use well-to-wake; they say they use Clean Cargo Work Group methodology. Their Ocean Alliance partner CMA CGM says the exact same thing.

“The two carriers operate in the same alliance. The LL4 and FAL1 service is the same service, cargo is shipped physically on the same ship. Yet the emissions calculation differ by more than a factor of three.”  

And, Mr Jensen noted, while OOCL’s calculator did not consider the diversion around the Cape, and the sailing distance is listed as 6,600km shorter than CMA CGM’s, even if OOCL’s emissions matched the longer sailing distance it would lead to an emission of 406kg.

“Quite far from the indication of CMA CGM,” he said.  

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) told The Loadstar: “While we aren’t placed to comment on individual companies, ICS does recognise the need for a system of global standards, and we strive to establish working models for the industry.” 

OOCL told The Loadstar its emission calculations were indeed based on the Clean Cargo Working Group methodology, but said it used well-to-tank rather than well-to-wake. 

It has since updated its calculator to reflect the Cape of Good Hope rerouting and added that “a further upgrade is under way to introduce a well-to-wake option”, targeted for this month. 

“These enhancements will align our practices with our industry peers and enable shippers to conduct a more comprehensive analysis of the carbon emissions associated with their shipments, to meet their evolving environmental demands,” added OOCL.

The ICS said having no global standard had created a “lack of transparency and consistency” in the industry.  

Meanwhile, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is finalising policy decisions for its fuel lifecycle assessment (LCA) guidelines, approved earlier this year. These contain calculation methodologies for well-to-tank, tank-to-wake and wel-to-wake emissions and can be used in different ways, depending on which aspects and phases of a fuel’s emission lifecycle need to be addressed. 

The ICS told The Loadstar: “The verification of upstream emissions in a fuel’s lifecycle is critical. This is especially true for biofuels, which have a wide variation of feedstock options that can only be verified if there is robust national oversight in the regions where they originate.  

“These national schemes will only work for a global industry like shipping if there is consistency in the verification and certification schemes, which can only be done through the IMO,” it added.