chevron in light blue
Back
Sep 13, 2019
|
Lockton Edge
Edge
Norway

Of the nine currently seized vessels, six are not in high-risk zones

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

There are currently nine cases of vessels that are being detained in places like Venezuela, the Stena Impero in Iran, a case in Egypt, two cases in Indonesia, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Russia, and of the countries where the current vessel seizures are taking place, six of them aren’t in excluded areas, said Richard Young, head of hull and war at Beazley.

Speaking at Lockton’s panel on September 11th as part of London International Shipping Week ” Navigating Difficult Waters: How Sanctions And Wars Are Impacting The Shipping World”, Young said that “in many of these cases, these aren’t even war claims”. They could instead be a charterparty dispute, a title dispute, or some kind of breach of local customs.

“Nevertheless, as war underwriters we are presented with claims every time this sort of thing happens. In some cases it is the traditional club letter of undertaking, but sometimes they don’t work, and then we find ourselves, as war underwriters, faced with these ‘funny claims’, and we think to ourselves, ‘well, that’s not a war claim'”.

Young said that premium rates at the moment were incredibly competitive and that “we are not really charging enough for this seizure risk. Although we have standard exclusionary language in a war policy, there are a number of clever lawyers who find ways to get around this. The war market does not have enough premium on an annual basis to pay all these claims”.

Young noted that conversations within the Joint War Committee were often “robust”. He said that insurers were responsible to shareholders, but they also had a responsibility to the shipowners. He pointed out that underwriters were always at liberty whether to charge an additional premium, although that price tended eventually to coalesce around a market price.

He warned that what underwriters faced was constant pressure from underwriters. “I just had an email this morning from a broker who said ‘oh, it’s all gone quiet now in the Persian Gulf, surely the rates are ready to come down?’ but that isn’t the case as far as we are concerned. The situation is as tense as ever. There are almost daily IRGC boats passing Royal Navy boats, there have been exchanges of fire. There’s a lot that doesn’t get reported.” Also, the Stena Impero remains seized, and Young noted that, should that seizure exceed six months in period, that could give rise to a huge claim (presumably under a clause that would allow it to be declared a CTL after six months’ seizure: Ed)

He also expressed some concern at what might in some places be seen as “overreach” by the US, their extraterritorial actions, because not all countries agreed with those actions.  “It’s US policy that we have to adhere to, but there are many areas of the world that just ignore it. … So it is very difficult for us to insure, for example, a Chinese fleet. Are they going to Iran? We have to ask that. We know that some Chinese vessels do go to Iran, and I can only assume that they do not write their insurance in the London Market”.

Young said that the very real reason of a vessel being seized by the US for contravention of sanctions, but in the eyes of the local jurisdiction the vessel is not breaking the law. Therefore “we could find ourselves with a seizure claim as a result of a US action and in the London market we would probably try to sit behind the sanctions exclusion.”

SOURCE: INSURANCE MARINE NEWS

No items found.