Decarbonising shipping: Maritime leaders call for unified regulation and fuel pragmatism

The session provided a rare forum for industry leaders to speak candidly about the operational and contractual risks ahead. As Jos Standerwick, CEO of Maritime London and seminar moderator, reflected: “While the ground is finally set from a regulatory perspective, it is increasingly clear that technological uncertainty and legal ambiguity still need to be addressed.”

Regulatory Duality: Double Compliance, Double Complexity
A major source of concern remains the concurrent operation of the IMO Net-Zero Framework and the EU’s FuelEU Maritime Regulation. Both aim to reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through fuel intensity targets and pricing mechanisms, but they diverge in scope, geography, timelines and credit trading rules.

“Whether or not stakeholders agree with it, the Net-Zero Framework has at least ended some of the uncertainty,” noted Alvin Forster, Head of Marine Engineering Services at Solis Marine. “But we’re now entering an era where ships trading in and out of the EU will be regulated twice by two separate and incompatible systems. That adds risk and complexity.”

There is hope that future alignment may come. FuelEU includes a provision for potential review, but political timelines are uncertain. Until then, shipowners face layered reporting requirements and cost burdens that risk deterring investment in their fleets.

No One Fuel to Rule Them All
Technical presentations confirmed that there will be no single ‘fuel of the future’. Instead, shipowners are preparing for a multi-fuel ecosystem shaped by vessel type, trade pattern and bunkering access.
Methanol, ammonia, hydrogen, biofuels and LNG are all in the running—but each comes with trade-offs.

“Every fuel has its own technical, safety and availability challenges,” said Richard Pemberton, Head of Clean Shipping at Solis Marine. “There’s no universal winner. Owners will choose what best fits their operating profile.”

Data from DNV’s Alternative Fuels Insight platform showed a clear uptick in methanol and LNG-capable ships on order; however, infrastructure and fuel supply chains remain embryonic, particularly for hydrogen and ammonia.

Contractual Gaps and Legal Lag
A recurrent theme throughout the seminar was the urgent need for contractual modernisation. Current charter party templates often lack provisions for emissions credit pooling, dual-fuel risk sharing, or performance degradation associated with alternative fuels.

“Charter parties don’t reflect the realities of a dual-fuel world,” warned James Turner KC of Quadrant Chambers. “Without clarity on responsibility, particularly around emissions liabilities and performance baselines, we’re almost certainly going to see disputes and likely soon.”
Turner also pointed to timing misalignments between reporting periods and charter durations. “Very few charter parties run neatly from January to December, yet compliance mechanisms are annual. That’s a ticking time bomb.”

While BIMCO has released draft clauses for FuelEU and CII, several experts have noted that they are still underutilised and in some cases require further refinement, including BIMCO one.

Safety and Spill Risks Escalate
Alternative fuels introduce new safety hazards that extend far beyond those associated with conventional marine fuel. Methanol is flammable. Ammonia is highly toxic. LNG presents cryogenic handling risks. In the event of a casualty or spill, containment strategies differ dramatically.
“Many of these fuels behave more like chemicals than oil,” explained Andrew Le Masurier, Senior Technical Adviser at ITOPF. “They’re volatile, often toxic, and disperse quickly. Response windows are narrow, and first responders are often the crew, not trained emergency personnel.”

Le Masurier illustrated his point with a striking video from Aqaba Port, where the rupture of a single chlorine tank released a toxic cloud that drifted fatally across the harbour. While the incident was not maritime in origin, it starkly highlighted the human and legal risks posed by inadequate preparation and emergency planning.

Seafarer Training: Dangerously Behind the Curve
A consistent message from panellists was that STCW training provisions are outdated. Crew readiness for fuels like ammonia and methanol is patchy at best, and in many cases, it is absent.

Are seafarers adequately equipped to handle the safety demands of next-generation fuels? “The easy answer is no, we’re not doing enough,” admitted one speaker. “It’s not just about handling the fuel; it’s about firefighting, first response, and evacuation protocols. We’re asking seafarers to manage advanced risk without advanced training.”
Calls were made for regulators to accelerate STCW updates, and for owners to go beyond compliance with targeted onboard and simulator training, especially for dual-fuel vessels.

Collaboration, Not Conflict
Despite the challenges, speakers repeatedly returned to one solution: collaboration.
Charterers and owners must move beyond transactional relationships and co-develop operational and compliance strategies to achieve a more effective partnership. Ports must align with flag states. Regulators must listen to industry voices when refining rules and enforcement.

“We need shared responsibility, not finger-pointing,” concluded Jos Standerwick. “The regulatory architecture is in place, but implementation will fail without alignment across contracts, training, infrastructure, and investment.”

The seminar served as a timely wake-up call: while the policy frameworks are advancing, the industry’s readiness to operate within them safely, commercially, and legally is still a work in progress.