Green maritime logistics coalition by green shipping corridors: a new paradigm for the decarbonisation of the maritime industry

ABSTRACTThe Clydebank Declaration proposed the concept of Green Shipping Corridor (GSC) at the 26th Congress of the Parties (COP 26) in 2021 to prioritise and accelerate the decarbonisation of the maritime industry. By sharing cost and risk burdens by the ten key stakeholders in the production of zero-emission ships and the use of green fuel oils, the GSC is conceived as an effective policy mechanism and logistics strategy to reduce GHG emissions at sea as well as to mitigate business risks inherent in the value chain. To ignite broader policy debate and discussion on the practical value of GSC, this paper reviews the current developments in GSCs, identifies key challenges in its implementation from a stakeholder’s perspective, and sets out global research agendas and future directions for decarbonising the maritime industry in the context of GSC.KEYWORDS: International Maritime Organization (IMO)green shipping corridorClydebank Declarationmaritime decarbonisationdigitalisation AcknowledgementsThe authors extend their heartfelt gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. Special appreciation is also extended to Professor Xiaowen Fu (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University), Professor Xuehao Feng (Zhejiang University), Professor Shiyuan Zheng (Shanghai Maritime University), and Mr. Sangjeong Lee (National University of Singapore) for providing insightful comments on the initial draft of this paper. Nevertheless, any remaining errors in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Data availability statementThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.Notes1 On the detailed information of each platform, see the updated policy paper entitled ‘COP 26: Clydebank Declaration for green shipping corridors’ (Department for Transport, U.K. Citation2022, 1).2 In developing zero-carbon services and fuels to their value chain by 2040, Amazon planned to launch partnerships such as ‘the First Movers Coalition and Cargo Owners for Zero Emission Vessels (coZEV)[2]’ through their US$2 billion Climate Pledge Fund (GS Challenges Citation2022, 4-5).3 This paper references a case study on LNG ship financing scheme in the Republic of Korea in the 1990s–2000s (see Appendix Figure 1). The peculiar financing scheme provides an explanation for the country's emergence as the leading global hub for LNG shipbuilding. For detailed analysis, see Lee (Citation2022b).4 Maersk intends to allocate a fleet of 19 vessels for deployment within the timeframe of 2023–2025, necessitating an estimated quantity of 750,000 tons of environmentally friendly methanol. To fulfill its ambitious objective of achieving its fleet emissions target by 2030, the company itself demands an annual supply of approximately 6 million tons of green methanol. (GC Challenges Citation2022, 4).5 Joerss et al. (Citation2021, 4) estimated that ‘by 2030, an iron-ore bulk carrier that runs on green ammonia will still cost 65 percent more, in terms of the annualised end-to-end TCO, than an iron-ore bulk carrier that runs on fossil-heavy fuel oil'. Zero-emission fuels cost is significantly higher than fossil fuels, increasing total costs of a ship by between 40 and 60 percent, depending on the routes and her size.6 The TCO consists of capital costs (e.g. cost of capital, depreciation cost) and operating costs (e.g. green-fuel cost, voyage cost, repairs and maintenance costs). An extra possible cost of a zero-emission ship is an opportunity cost for the lost cargo space, which is caused by larger green-fuel tank space. Therefore, there exist differences in total costs and cost items between a fossil-fuel ship and a green-fuel ship total ship. This draws another research agenda related to GSC studies.