chevron in light blue
Back
Feb 4, 2016
|
Lockton Edge

The Iran Quagmire

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

As the first crude carriers are being fixed to take Iranian oil, the insurance industry is in a quagmire over the eased sanction regime. In particular it is the inability of US insurers or reinsurers to pay claims related to voyages to Iran that is causing trouble. On the hull side this is relatively easily handled by a replacing of the insurances with European insurers, however, this involves a cancel and rewrite of policies which is a quite big exercise and is therefore easier considered in connection the ordinary renewals. US backed insurers have reason to be concerned about upcoming renewals in particular with regard to their clients in the energy transportation industry, should not the falling rates were be troubling enough. The position with regard to Lloyd’s is also far from clear with underwriters reluctant to take decisions, and pointing to their compliance departments for approval. Elsewhere European insurers look hard at their reinsurance and worry about any irrecoverable amount from US reinsurers.

Above all, however, it is the International Group that is the problem. The IGA is yet to take a clear position that is of use for shipowners. The members are debating between themselves how the International Group Agreement should be applied to the current situation. It seems clear that any club who goes ahead with offering P&I to ships trading on Iran (always of course in accordance with the revised sanctions) will be liable for their retention. When it comes to the pool the general view is that this will respond, however, with the exception of the American’s Club’s participation of 3.1% which ahead of the renewal amounts to USD 2,201,000 which may end up for client’s account. Further up the programme some 17% of the Group’s reinsurance programme to USD 3 billion is placed with US reinsurers, which points to a shortfall of USD 494,400,000. From here on it gets complicated, with no clear statement coming out of the IGA: one view held is that the USD 494,400,000 is a poolable exposure which again means a shortfall (American Club) of 3.1% i.e. USD 15,326,400 as a potential exposure for client’s account. Altogether therefore the exposure for clients could be as high as USD 17,500,000 million which most owners would be more than reluctant to face. Eve a more probable worst case scenario of USD 1 billion, points to a possible irrecoverable amount of close to USD 5 million.

An then of course there is the matter of who the client is liable to: if the third party (another ship or say jetty) is on the sanctions list then P&I will be unable to post guarantee, and the vessel end up being arrested, so risks remain high even with a solution.

Edge’s experience with the matter generally points to Hull, Interest and LOH exposures with replacement capacity being available with security in Norway both on voyage (generally for existing clients) and at renewal. On the war risk covers we have seen to date US insurers and reinsurers have significant involvement and voyage replacement is harder to get done, due to higher exposures. We have, however, available a separate war takeout capacity for owners wishing to trade Iran.

No items found.