• 5 min de lectura
• 5 min de lectura
To meet the IMO's emissions reduction targets, maritime industry commitment must extend to delivering greater data transparency and measurable action to prevent decarb projects from becoming mere exercises in optics, writes Esteve Servajean, Head of Marine, Aderco
While the maritime sector often expresses its commitment to the International Maritime Organization's (IMO's) Net Zero ambitions and 2030/2050 targets, rhetoric and reality also frequently diverge. In many respects, our sector is a laggard among global industries where emissions are concerned and needs to take a hard, honest look at itself – or risk falling even further behind by clinging to outdated concepts, strategies and technologies.
Conventionally, ship 'efficiency' has been measured in fuel cost per tonne-mile. However, although many have yet to grasp the fact, this metric is becoming obsolete. Today, the true efficiency of a ship is measured in multiple parameters, which encompass fuel cost and emissions from the stack but also include lifecycle emissions (plus upstream fuel production and vessel disposal), real-time carbon transparency, and the social and regulatory requirements for navigating relationships with ports, financial institutions and cargo owners.
At Aderco, we see this transformation daily. Five years ago, operators primarily spoke to us about fuel savings; today, they demand proven emissions reduction solutions, compatibility with future fuels and verifiable contributions to ESG performance. Companies still measuring efficiency on a single axis are already falling behind.
The future is multi-fuel
Let's dispel another outdated misperception causing more harm than good: the belief that a single, specific alt-fuel will deliver Net Zero for maritime within the next two decades. The future is multi-fuel, and shipowners must accept and plan for that, ensuring a high degree of flexibility when assessing their options.
Accepting this proposition, it is still fair to ask what the point is of investing in a specific fuel if the ship may operate in regions where the portside infrastructure for that fuel is lacking. The truth is, the availability of green methanol, bio-LNG and ammonia at scale is years behind schedule, even at the major ports that drive global trade. For this reason, shipowners should lean towards investments into dual-fuel configurations where commercially viable and avoid long-term supply contracts tied to a single fuel.
It is not all about fuel selection; operational optimisation remains the most actionable lever today, from engine condition management and real-time fuel consumption monitoring to efficient voyage planning. Even simpler measures, including the application of high-performance anti-fouling coatings, wind-assisted propulsion systems and underwater turbines, are now part of the conversation. Various practical and complementary solutions can be implemented immediately without waiting for new fuel infrastructure to catch up.
The industry must therefore resist the temptation to standardise too early. Instead, it should build flexible, adaptive strategies that can evolve as the landscape changes. Most importantly, while some uncertainty regarding future fuels is natural, it must never become an excuse for inaction.
Regulatory fragmentation
On the regulatory side, FuelEU Maritime, the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) and the IMO's revised greenhouse gas reduction strategy have created a framework shipowners cannot ignore. However, while shipowners are pragmatic investors, they need a clear regulatory framework and a long-term vision before they commit capital with confidence.
At present, regulatory fragmentation is a serious obstacle. The IMO sets global ambitions, but the EU is advancing on its own timeline and with its own instruments. This is forcing shipowners operating under multiple jurisdictions to navigate numerous, sometimes contradictory regulatory frameworks simultaneously.
The skills and data gap is also severely underestimated. Achieving 2030 and 2050 milestones will require not just new hardware, but new competencies in fleet management, data analytics and carbon accounting. The maritime sector is only starting to take this human capital challenge seriously.
Equally important is investment in data infrastructure. Reliable energy consumption, emissions and performance data is a crucial competitive asset, regardless of the alt-fuel selected. Unavoidably, the answer must make economic sense.
Get off the sidelines
To resolve regulatory fragmentation, only IMO can implement a carbon levy framework on a global basis. A credible, maritime-specific carbon credit scoring system could unlock capital, reward early adopters and create genuine behavioural incentives across the supply chain.
To be credible, though, this system must be built on real, verifiable data, not theoretical models, and must connect meaningfully to financial instruments to have actual market impact. We have seen too much greenwashing in other sectors, with initiatives often prioritising optics over actual emissions reductions. Maritime must therefore acknowledge its historically poor emissions data quality, get off the sidelines and take urgent action to fix it.
Fortunately, European green finance is proving a major accelerator. Instruments such as green bonds, sustainability-linked loans and the Poseidon Principles have moved into the mainstream and are now influencing key boardroom decisions. While stranded asset risk is real, so is the danger of losing competitive ground. The best approach is to focus on what can be actioned today, build flexibility into investment choices and stay closely aligned with regulatory and customer expectations. Any successful drive towards Net Zero relies on a fine balancing act between regulation and market forces.
The companies that help define credible standards will be far better positioned than those that react to them later. However, and it cannot be overemphasised, the bar for 'credible' must be high, incorporating transparency, independent verification and a direct link to measurable emissions outcome. Without that, we risk creating another layer of complexity with no clear impact.
Fuente: GCAPTAIN
