BIMCO has released an updated version of its greenhouse gas position statement, elaborating on who it believes should pay for carbon pricing.
The updated statement also warns that excessive retroactive measures could create adverse and unintended consequences.
BIMCO said it supports the initial GHG strategy of the International Maritime Organization, which confirms the IMO’s commitment to phasing GHG emissions out of international shipping as soon as possible, but notes the regulatory landscape is changing.
Though it supports the vision behind the strategy, BIMCO said it believes more ambition is needed. It therefore supports the objective of net zero carbon for shipping by 2050.
“Tackling the barriers to transition may be the single most important issue facing the shipping industry on its path to decarbonisation,” BIMCO said in a statement.
“To succeed, new commercial solutions and shared responsibilities between charterers and shipowners will be required.
“So will collaborative efforts and responsibilities by stakeholders from shipowners, shippers and charterers to energy suppliers, shipyards, and engine makers.”
BIMCO also raised the issue of allocating the responsibility for carbon pricing.
It said the commercial party responsible for setting the speed and route of a ship should also provide for emissions allowances or credits under a market-based measure.
“We believe that in the case of a time charterparty, this responsibility should lie with the charterer,” BIMCO secretary general and CEO David Loosley said.
“Under a voyage charterparty, it should be with the party that commits the ship to the voyage charter.”
BIMCO said it remains a persistent advocate for the implementation of a global market-based measure.
It noted such a measure should feature predictability and stability with regard to carbon price and thereby be suitable for incorporation in commercial contracts.
“A note of caution is made in the position pointing out that excessive retroactive technical measures when applied to existing ship could result in premature retirement of ships,” Mr Loosley said.
“This could be in the form of unwarranted removal of needed capacity from the global supply chains and unnecessary additional emissions from building new ships.”
