International Shipping

Critically Insufficient4°C+ World

NDCs with this rating fall well outside of a country’s “fair share” range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would exceed 4°C. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with warming of greater than 4°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.

Highly insufficient< 4°C World

NDCs with this rating fall outside of a country’s “fair share” range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach between 3°C and 4°C. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with warming between 3°C and 4°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.

Insufficient< 3°C World

NDCs with this rating are in the least stringent part of a country’s “fair share” range and not consistent with holding warming below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach over 2°C and up to 3°C. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with warming over 2°C and up to 3°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.

2°C Compatible< 2°C World

NDCs with this rating are consistent with the 2009 Copenhagen 2°C goal and therefore fall within a country’s “fair share” range, but are not fully consistent with the Paris Agreement long term temperature goal. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming could be held below, but not well below, 2°C and still be too high to be consistent with the Paris Agreement 1.5°C limit. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with holding warming below, but not well below, 2°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.

1.5°C Paris Agreement Compatible< 1.5°C World

This rating indicates that a government’s NDCs in the most stringent part of its “fair share” range: it is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit.

Role model<< 1.5°C World

This rating indicates that a government’s NDC is more ambitious than what is considered a “fair” contribution: it is more than consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit. No “role model” rating has been developed for the sectors.

1.5°C Compatible< 1.5°C World

Historical emissions

1990-2018 estimates
The CAT derived its historical emissions data for the period 1990 to 2018 from the different IMO GHG reports (IMO - MEPC, 2020; IMO, 2009; Smith et al., 2014).

We use data from the IMO Fourth GHG study for years 2012-2018 (voyage-based approach), extended back to 1990 using growth rates from the IMO 3^rd GHG study (2007-2011) and 2^nd GHG study (1990-2006) (IMO - MEPC, 2020). We use the estimate based on the voyage-based approach from the IMO 4^th GHG study for the year 2008.

2019-2021 estimates
We use growth rates for international shipping CO₂ emissions in EDGAR v7 GHG emissions dataset to extend the timeseries to 2021 (JRC & IEA, 2022).

This data appears as the solid black line in our graph.

For comparison purposes, we also include emissions calculated using the vessel-based approach (light grey line). These emissions are calculated using the same sources and methods as above. For more on the different approaches, see here.

Sector Targets

2030 Carbon intensity target
The UMAS study, which forms the top end of our policy range (see below), provides the percentage reduction below 2008 levels using the AER vessel-based approach (Smith, Galbraith, et al., 2022). We calculate the carbon intensity for 2030 from these reduction values and data for the AER vessel-based approach in the IMO’s Fourth Study for 2008.

To convert between vessel and voyage, we use the ratio between AER (vessel)/(voyage) in 2018 (that last year for which we have data).

We assume that the differences between our current policy emission projections and the UMAS study are due to differences in transport work assumes and thus that the carbon intensity does not change.

We calculate the implied transport work in our current policy projections using the carbon intensity value derived from the UMAS study and apply it to the target carbon intensity value to estimate CO₂ emissions in 2030.

2030 and 2040 ‘indicative checkpoints’
The indicative goals apply to all GHG emissions (excluding black carbon); however, we calculate CO₂ emissions only as this is the basis of our rating system.

For 2030, we apply the 20% and 30% reduction goals to the 2008 value (voyage-based approach) for CO₂ emissions provided in the IMO’s 4^th GHG study. We apply the same approach to the 2040 reduction goals.

The Fourth 4^th Study provides an estimate for all GHGs (voyage-based) in 2008 using AR5 Global Warming Potential values. To convert to AR4 values (the CAT standard), we assume the same gas ratio as in 2012 as that is the closest year to 2008 for which we have a gas-by-gas breakdown.

Net zero target
We are not able to calculate the net zero target because no information is provided on the amount of remaining emissions from international shipping by 2050 and beyond. Furthermore, in having a “by or around 2050” deadline, it is uncertain when exactly shipping will exactly need to reach net zero emissions.

For the purposes of our global temperature estimate, we have used a value of 0 in 2070 to account for these uncertainties.

Current policy projections

The top end of our current policy projection range is based on a scenario from UMAS (Smith, Galbraith, et al., 2022). The study bases its projections on the SSP2_RCP2.6 L scenario, which corresponds to part of our previous upper bound in our 2021 assessment, but includes the impacts of the pandemic and the latest energy efficient measures. We use the growth rates from this projection and apply these to the last historic year.

The bottom end of our range is based on the minimum values of the three scenarios included in the IMO’s Fourth Study logistics model method (OECD_RCP26_L). To estimate the impact of the latest EE measures, we assume that this scenario will fall in equal proportion to difference between our previous top and bottom ranges and the UMAS study to scale this projection downwards.

Emissions estimates in the 4^th GHG Study are for all shipping. We take the ratio between all shipping and the voyage-based approach in 2018 to derive voyage-based estimates. The UMAS study uses the vessel-based approach, we assume a constant ratio between vessel and voyage.

Gas Coverage

Our analysis and rating methodology is currently limited to CO₂ emissions.

Scope of sector

The IPCC GHG inventory guidelines divide shipping into international navigation, domestic navigation and fishing (IPCC, 2006). It defines international shipping as “journeys that depart in one country and arrive in a different country”, while domestic shipping includes “journeys from ports to ports within the same country”. International shipping is responsible for most emissions (70-87% in 2018 using voyage or vessel-based approaches respectively) (IMO - MEPC, 2020). Data incorporating both international, domestic shipping and fishing is often referred to as ‘total shipping’.

Our assessment is of international shipping only and all references to shipping should be taken to mean ‘international shipping’ unless otherwise stated.

Emissions from domestic shipping and fishing are considered as part of national totals and are included in the assessment of individual CAT countries.