chevron in light blue
Back
Dec 21, 2022
|
Lockton Edge
Edge
Norway

Marine insurance ‘fails to tackle new risks’ - Anders Langeland Johannessen in Tradewinds

The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) was extended to cover emissions from shipping as of 1st January 2024.

The EU ETS is limited by a 'cap' on the number of emission allowances. Within the cap, companies receive or buy emission allowances, which they can trade as needed. The cap decreases every year, ensuring that total emissions fall.

Each allowance gives the holder the right to emit:

  • One tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2), or;
  • The equivalent amount of other powerful greenhouse gases, nitrous oxide (N2O) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
  • The price of one ton of CO2 allowance under the EU ETS has fluctuated between EUR 60 and almost EUR 100 in the past two years. The total cost of emissions will vary based on the cost of the allowance at the time of purchase, the vessel’s emissions profile and the total volume of voyages performed within the EU ETS area. The below is for illustration purposes:
  • ~A 30.000 GT passenger ship has total emissions of 20.000 tonnes in a reporting year, of which 9.000 are within the EU, 7.000 at berth within the EU and 4.000 are between the EU and an outside port. The average price of the allowance is EUR 75 per tonne. The total cost would be as follows:
  • ~~9.000 * EUR 75 = EUR 675.000
  • ~~7.000 * EUR 75 = EUR 525.000
  • ~~4.000 * EUR 75 * 50% = EUR 150.000
  • ~~Total = EUR 1.350.000 (of which 40% is payable in 2024)
  • For 2024, a 60% rebate is admitted to the vessels involved. However, this is reduced to 30% in 2025, before payment is due for 100% with effect from 2026.
  • Emissions reporting is done for each individual ship, where the ship submits their data to a verifier (such as a class society) which in turns allows the shipowner to issue a verified company emissions report. This report is then submitted to the administering authority, and it is this data that informs what emission allowances need to be surrendered to the authority.
  • The sanctions for non- compliance are severe, and in the case of a ship that has failed to comply with the monitoring and reporting obligations for two or more consecutive reporting periods, and where other enforcement measures have failed to ensure compliance, the competent authority of an EEA port of entry may issue an expulsion order. Where such a ship flies the flag of an EEA country and enters or is found in one of its ports, the country concerned will, after giving the opportunity to the company concerned to submit its observations, detain the ship until the company fulfils its monitoring and reporting obligations.
  • Per the EU’s Implementing Regulation, it is the Shipowner who remains ultimately responsible for complying with the EU ETS system.

There are a number of great resources on the regulatory and practical aspects of the system – none better than the EU’s own:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02003L0087-20230605

https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport/reducing-emissions-shipping-sector_en

https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/what-eu-ets_en

Lockton Marine Head of Special Risks Anders Langeland Johannessen recently spoke at the Marine Insurance Nordics event held for the first time in Oslo this November. His talk was on whether the marine insurance market is keeping up with our clients' demand, and Tradewinds reports as follows:

Marine insurers are learning a lot from confronting the modern risks that their clients or members face. But they are failing to turn their knowledge into new products to protect their insureds.

So believes Anders Langeland Johannessen, head of special risks for Lockton Marine and managing director of Bergen-based subsidiary Lockton Edge.

Pandemic risk, cyber-crime risk, sanctions and other political risks, and climate risks are among the threats from which owners lack adequate ways to protect themselves.

As an industry, we have the capacity [to cover such risks], but we are struggling to keep pace with demand from a client perspective,

Johannessen said.

His criticisms of the failure of the marine insurance industry to find ways to cover new risks found broad agreement at the Marine Insurance Nordics conference in Oslo.

Cyber-crime risk was one area in which abundant new experience has failed to bring forth solutions.

The only thing we’ve learned after all these years facing those risks is how to exclude them, or to offer relatively unsophisticated property loss cover,

he told delegates.

Pandemic risk, or communicable disease risk as underwriters categorise it, is an example of how experience has failed to develop into cover.

One form of political risk that shipowners face — the risk of seizure of vessels — has taken a number of modern forms, but is also insufficiently addressed, he believes.

The loss of revenue is still largely uninsured,

Johannessen said.

It’s something it’s possible to do something about, but we don’t.

One challenge that will become more topical from the beginning of 2023 is the risk of non-compliance with the International Maritime Organization’s environmental regulations such as the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII).

Generally speaking, non-compliance with regulations is not covered by insurance. But Johannessen believes that when CII comes into force, there may be special cases of non-compliance or alleged non-compliance that call for attention from insurers. That might be when a mechanical breakdown makes a ship non-compliant, or when port-state authorities in some jurisdictions have unexpected ways of interpreting the IMO regulation.

More generally, he characterised climate risk as presenting a set of “unknown unknowns” that will demand flexibility to address.

Among the reasons for the perplexity of marine underwriters about how to cover modern classes of risk is the way the industry prices its services. Insurers and their brokers approach their clients too much on a transactional basis and too little as providers of consultancy services.

Another reason is a failure to exploit risk data as a resource, he suggested.

We don’t take enough interest in the data, and both knowledge of the data and sharing of the data are lacking. Generally, we are too comfortable to break the wheel and fully embrace technology as a tool to innovate and create efficiencies

Some have objected that shipowners are too conservative to be a market for unfamiliar products and would generally only insure themselves against risks that they had already faced. The Lockton Marine broker had a ready answer to that.

I'm still alive, but I do buy life insurance,

he said.

"SOURCE: TRADEWINDS 14 November 2022 To watch Anders’ full presentation “Marine Insurance Keeping Pace with Demand” follow this link: https://vimeo.com/770727817/0485a1470f

No items found.