Shipping Emissions Reductions: Current Rules and 18 Proven Levers Owners Actually Use

January 28, 2026

Shipping emissions reduction is no longer a future talking point, it is a current operating variable that shows up in audits, voyage economics, and charter conversations. The rulebook is also split: IMO sets the global baseline, Europe adds direct carbon cost and fuel-intensity requirements, and the next IMO package is moving through negotiations even if it is not formally adopted yet. This report keeps it simple: a fast compliance map, the EU pieces that change behavior right now, a clear view of what is coming next, and 18 practical moves that owners actually use to cut fuel burn and carbon exposure without getting lost in unnecessary detail.

Global IMO rules already live EU rules changing behavior now Next IMO package in the pipeline 18 owner-ready reduction moves

Global IMO rules that already apply today

These four items are the core “already live” emissions reduction framework under MARPOL Annex VI. They drive required documentation, annual reporting, and operational choices that show up in reviews and audits.

Orientation: amendments entered into force 1 Nov 2022, with EEXI and CII requirements effective 1 Jan 2023. Initial CII ratings were issued from 2024 onward based on 2023 reporting.

Measure	Scope	Effective date and trigger	Typical evidence	Owner impact
EEXI Design efficiency for existing ships Technical	Ships of 400 GT and above under MARPOL Annex VI	Requirements effective 1 Jan 2023 (following entry into force 1 Nov 2022)	EEXI calculation and verification, International Energy Efficiency Certificate updates, evidence of any required technical limitation or modification	Forces a minimum design efficiency threshold for existing tonnage, often pushing engine power limitation decisions and technical tuning
CII Operational carbon intensity rating A to E Operational	Ships of 5,000 GT and above	Requirements effective 1 Jan 2023, first ratings issued from 2024 based on 2023 reporting	Annual attained CII calculation using verified fuel and activity data, rating outcome, and documentation supporting any corrections or adjustments	Makes fuel and voyage efficiency visible and comparable, often influencing speed, routing, maintenance discipline, and charter discussions
SEEMP Part III CII implementation and improvement plan Plan and governance	Ships covered by CII (5,000 GT and above)	Annual cycle tied to CII, with a stronger requirement when ratings are weak	SEEMP Part III on board, implementation plan, self evaluation process, and documented improvements Corrective Action Plan required if rated D for 3 consecutive years or E for 1 year.	Turns CII into an operating plan that can be checked. Weak ratings force formal corrective actions and documented follow through
IMO DCS Fuel oil consumption data collection system Measurement backbone	Ships of 5,000 GT and above	Collection required from 1 Jan 2019; since 2023 the data supports CII calculations	Verified annual fuel consumption and activity data, Statement of Compliance, and submission flow to the IMO database	Creates an annual verified dataset that underpins emissions and efficiency claims, and supports comparisons across the fleet

EU regulations that change behavior now

Europe is currently the most direct “pay or change” environment for shipping emissions. One rule prices emissions through allowances. The other sets fuel and energy intensity limits on a well to wake basis. Together, they shape voyage economics, fuel choices, and near term operating tactics for any fleet calling EU and EEA ports.

Measure	Scope	Coverage and phase-in	Typical evidence	Owner impact
EU ETS for maritime Carbon allowances on voyage and port emissions Cost signal	Large ships 5,000 GT and above calling at EU ports, regardless of flag Scope basis: 100% of emissions on voyages between EU ports and at berth in EU ports, plus 50% of emissions on voyages between an EU port and a non EU port.	Extended to maritime from 1 Jan 2024 Surrender phase-in (share of verified emissions that must be covered by allowances): 40% of 2024 emissions, surrendered in 2025 70% of 2025 emissions, surrendered in 2026 100% from 2026 emissions onward, surrendered in 2027 and beyond Common planning note: ETS scope starts with CO2 and expands to additional greenhouse gases from 2026.	EU MRV emissions report and verified emissions data, ETS account setup and compliance process, internal cost allocation and voyage responsibility logic	Adds a direct voyage cost line. It quickly turns routing, speed, port stays, and charter party cost sharing into commercial priorities.
FuelEU Maritime Well to wake GHG intensity limits on energy used on board Fuel standard	Ships above 5,000 GT calling at EU and EEA ports, regardless of flag Applies across voyages and port stays using a similar geographic logic to EU ETS, including energy used at berth and on intra EU voyages, plus a share on extra EU legs.	Starts from 1 Jan 2025 Target pathway is staged, with an initial 2% reduction in GHG intensity in 2025 and tightening steps to 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, and 2050. Allows compliance flexibility features such as pooling, banking, and borrowing between compliance periods (used to smooth penalties and investment timing).	FuelEU monitoring plan, annual reporting and verification, documented fuel and energy use data, calculation of yearly average GHG intensity	Pushes fuel strategy and bunkering planning. Creates a structured reason to trial low carbon fuels, shore power readiness, and energy efficiency upgrades that improve intensity results.

IMO Net-Zero Framework, next global package

This is the next major IMO step after EEXI and CII. The framework text was approved at MEPC 83 in April 2025, but the adoption meeting in October 2025 ended without formal adoption. Work continues and the adoption discussion is set to resume in 2026.

Measure	Scope	Current status	Core design elements	Owner impact
IMO Net-Zero Framework Global fuel standard plus global GHG pricing mechanism Not yet adopted	Intended as amendments under MARPOL Annex VI, aimed at large ocean-going ships Implementation details are still being finalized through IMO workstreams and guidelines.	Approved at MEPC 83 (Apr 2025) as draft text, with formal adoption originally scheduled for Oct 2025. The extraordinary adoption session in Oct 2025 was adjourned and will be reconvened, with talks continuing through 2026.	Global fuel standard to drive lower GHG intensity energy use over time Global pricing mechanism designed to reward lower-emission performance and apply a cost to higher emissions	Signals the direction of travel for fuel strategy and charter economics, even before adoption. For owners, the near-term work is scenario planning: fuel pathways, data readiness, and contract language that can handle a global price signal.

Practical reading: Treat this as a “design is set, knobs are still being tuned” package. The best near-term advantage is preparedness: clean baseline data, clear fuel strategy options by trade, and a plan for how a global price signal would be allocated across voyages and charters.

18 Shipping Emissions Reductions

These are practical levers that reduce fuel burn, improve reported intensity, or reduce carbon cost exposure in the current rule set. The list is grouped into four buckets so readers can jump straight to what is realistic for their fleet.

Payoff tags are directional, based on typical fuel impact and frequency of use across fleets. Actual outcomes depend on hull condition, trade, weather, port time, and charter constraints.

Cost and install notes

Where solid public ranges exist, the table shows them. Several ranges come from IMO GreenVoyage2050 technology pages (developed with DNV support), which publish estimated cost bands for shipboard measures.
Where costs vary too widely (software, crew routines, charter terms, fuel premiums), the table uses practical notes without hard numbers.

Operations and voyage discipline (6)

Low capex levers that can show up quickly in fuel consumption and intensity metrics when enforced consistently.

Move	Best fit	Payoff	Cost and install	Operating notes	Tracking
Speed and power policy speed bands, engine load targets	Most deep-sea trades with some schedule flexibility	High Often the largest controllable fuel lever when feasible	Low Mainly governance and monitoring setup	Needs charter alignment and clear rules for weather and safety overrides	Fuel per nm, RPM and load, speed profile, ETA adherence
Weather routing and arrival planning avoid heavy weather and unnecessary speed-ups	Long legs, variable weather, congestion-prone ports	Medium Best when paired with port readiness and berth windows	Low Routing services vary widely; no universal figure	Reduces peak power periods, lowers schedule volatility	Route vs baseline, peak power events, waiting-at-anchor hours
Trim and draft optimization real-time trim guidance	Bulkers, tankers, container, many hulls benefit	Medium Small gains that add up across voyages	Low Process change or software, cost varies	Requires crew habit and reliable sensors or guidance tools	Trim logs, fuel vs draft curves, noon report consistency
Hull and prop cleanliness discipline planned cleaning strategy	Any ship with rising fuel curve or biofouling exposure	High Often strong ROI relative to cost	Variable Depends on coating, location, and access rules; no single figure	Coordinate with coatings, class, and port restrictions	Before/after power curve, speed-loss trend, inspection records
Auxiliary load management HVAC, pumps, reefers, hotel loads	RoPax, cruise, reefers, high hotel-load ships	Medium Can matter on long port stays and steady sea time	Low Mostly procedures and setpoints	Needs comfort and safety minimums and watch routines	Generator hours, kWh estimates, aux fuel split
Port call efficiency tactics reduce waiting, reduce “hurry then wait”	Congested trades, liner networks, variable terminals	Medium Fuel reduction plus fewer catch-up sprints	Low Coordination cost, not equipment	Requires coordination with charterer, terminal, and agents	Anchor hours, speed-up events, arrival deviations

Retrofits and technical upgrades (6)

Higher effort than operational moves, often scheduled around drydock or planned off-hire.

Upgrade	Best fit	Payoff	Cost and install	Technical notes	Tracking
Propeller retrofit or replacement CFD analysis + new prop where justified	Ships with stable operating profile and prop wear	High Often a measurable shift in power curve	IMO estimate USD 400,000 to 850,000 (with CFD and a new prop). Install commonly aligned with drydock schedules.	Best when paired with hull condition work and validated sea trials	Sea trial deltas, power curve shift, vibration checks
Propulsion-improving devices pre-swirl, ducts, fins, boss cap fins, vane wheels	Design-specific: ducts for fuller forms; pre-swirl for slender	Medium Incremental gains that stack well	IMO estimate Typical cost bands by device: USD 100,000 to 250,000 (boss cap fins); USD 250,000 to 450,000 (pre-swirl); USD 525,000 to 800,000 (ducts or vane wheels).	Results depend on design fit and installation quality	Fuel-per-nm deltas, model validation, inspection records
Air lubrication bubble or air layer drag reduction	Larger vessels with high utilization and steady routes	Medium Can be strong where hull and duty cycle fit	Vendor reported Cost examples reported around EUR 800,000 (small) up to EUR 2,000,000 (large). Retrofit duration often quoted as about 6 to 10 days in drydock, with some projects longer depending on scope.	Capex and complexity are higher; system uptime matters	System uptime, net fuel delta including compressor load, maintenance logs
Waste heat recovery steam turbine, power turbine, or combined	Large engines with steady loads and long sea time	Medium Most effective on steady load profiles	IMO estimate Installation cost estimated USD 5.2M to 11.5M per ship. Annual maintenance estimates published around USD 10,000 to 30,000 depending on configuration.	Integration and maintenance matter; validate benefits over real voyages	kW recovered, fuel delta, engine performance reports
Shaft generator or PTO/PTI reduce auxiliary engine running at sea	Long transits, high electrical demand, efficient main engine	Medium Often a meaningful auxiliary fuel lever	IMO estimate Estimated cost USD 520,000 to 3,500,000 depending on power and vessel type. Typical cost basis cited around USD 450 per kW.	Electrical integration and torsional vibration checks are common project items	Aux generator hours reduction, load profile, fuel delta
Shore power readiness cold ironing capability	Frequent port stays where shore power exists or is planned	Low Big at-berth impact, but depends on port access	IMO estimate Vessel-side adaptation estimated USD 50,000 to 2,000,000 depending on power needs and electrical design. Port-side infrastructure is separate.	Value is highest where ports have compatible standards and frequent connection	At-berth fuel reduction, shore power hours, compliance evidence

Cost sources used above include IMO GreenVoyage2050 technology pages for propeller retrofitting, propulsion-improving devices, shaft generators, shore power, and waste heat recovery. Air lubrication cost and install timing uses public vendor statements and industry reporting.

Fuel pathways and compliance economics (6)

Four fuel levers plus two EU-facing compliance playbooks that shift cost exposure and investment timing now.

Move	Best fit	Payoff	Cost and install	Commercial and technical notes	Tracking
Drop-in biofuels blends used in existing engines Near-term	Fleets needing fast intensity improvement without newbuilds	Medium Depends on fuel availability and sustainability pathway	Variable Premiums vary by region and certification; no stable public average	Documentation and chain-of-custody are the difference between a claim and a verified claim	BDNs, certificates where required, consumption allocation by voyage
Methanol pathway newbuild or conversion where feasible Scaling	Trades with developing bunkering and charter pull	Medium Lifecycle reductions depend on feedstock	Project-based Conversion and newbuild pricing varies too widely for a universal figure	Tank volume and range impact, safety and training, fuel contract structure	Fuel sourcing docs, consumption, operational limits, drills
LNG and dual-fuel optimization with methane management focus Mixed	Newer tonnage already equipped, trades with LNG supply	Low CO2 gains can be offset if methane slip is unmanaged	Already installed For existing LNG ships, the focus is operating mode and controls	Results depend on engine type and operating mode; measure, do not assume	Mode tracking, fuel split reporting, methane management procedures
Ammonia and next-gen zero-carbon fuels future-oriented fleet planning Pipeline	Newbuild programs with long timelines and strong stakeholder demand	High Potentially very low lifecycle emissions with green supply	Project-based Technology and supply chain are still developing	Safety case, supply readiness, crew training, and maturity are binding constraints	Project milestones, class approvals, safety case documentation
EU ETS cost playbook allowance strategy and contract allocation EU	Any fleet calling EU ports	Medium Savings come from allocation and operating choices	Commercial Allowance price moves; focus on allocation method and timing	Clause design and voyage responsibility decisions matter as much as engineering	EU MRV verified emissions, EUA procurement and surrender records
FuelEU compliance playbook pooling, banking, borrowing where allowed EU	EU trading fleets with diverse ship types and fuel options	Medium Flexibility can reduce penalties and smooth timing	Commercial Value depends on fleet mix and data discipline	Works best with a fleet-level view and consistent measurement	FuelEU plan, verification outputs, pooling documentation

We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements. Please click here to get in touch.

By the ShipUniverse Editorial Team — About Us | Contact