CBI Shipping Criteria – Criteria Document
The Shipping Criteria for the
Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme

September 2020
Document control
Version 1
Version 1b

Original issue, September 2020
Edits made to EEOI decarbonization trajectories tablewith greater definition on units of measurement.
December 2021

The Climate Bonds Initiative gratefully acknowledges the Technical and Industry Working Group
members who supported the development of these Criteria. Members are listed in Annex 2.
Special thanks are given to Tristan Smith, and Sophie Parker from University College London, who
acted as the lead specialists coordinating the development of the Criteria through the Technical
Working Group, and to Adolf Ng, Mawuli Afenyo and Roozbeh Panahi from the University of
Manitoba, who were instrumental to the discussion on adaptation and resilience.
Proposals were agreed by the Technical Working Group, taking into account feedback from theIndustry Working Group.

Definitions
Approved verifiers: Organisations approved by the Climate Bonds Initiative to provide assurance services toissuers of Certified Climate Bonds. The duties of approved verifiers include providing assurance that therequirements of the Climate Bonds Standard (including these and other sector specific Criteria) are met.
Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI): An investor-focused not-for-profit organisation, promoting large-scale
investments that will deliver a global low carbon and climate resilient economy. The Initiative seeks to develop
mechanisms to better align the interests of investors, industry and government so as to catalyse investments at
a speed and scale sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.
Climate Bond: A Climate Bond is a bond used to finance – or re-finance - projects needed to address climatechange. They range from wind farms and hydropower plants, to rail transport and building sea walls in cities
threatened by rising sea levels. Only a small portion of these bonds have been labelled as green or climate bondsby their issuers.
Certified Climate Bond: A Climate Bond that is certified by the Climate Bonds Standard Board as meeting therequirements of the Climate Bonds Standard, as attested through independent verification.
Climate Bonds Standard (CBS): A screening tool for investors and governments that allows them to identify
green bonds where they can be confident that the funds are being used to deliver climate change solutions. Thismay be through climate mitigation impact and/ or climate adaptation or resilience. The CBS is made up of twoparts: the parent standard (Climate Bonds Standard v.3) and a suite of sector specific eligibility Criteria. The
parent standard covers the certification process and pre- and post-issuance requirements for all certified bonds,
regardless of the nature of the capital projects. The Sector Criteria detail specific requirements for assets
identified as falling under that specific sector. The latest version of the CBS is published on the Climate Bonds
Initiative website
Climate Bonds Standard Board (CBSB): A board of independent members that collectively represents $34 trillionof assets under management. The CBSB is responsible for approving i) Revisions to the Climate Bonds Standard,
including the adoption of additional sector Criteria, ii) Approved verifiers, and iii) Applications for Certificationof a bond under the Climate Bonds Standard. The CBSB is constituted, appointed and supported in line with thegovernance arrangements and processes as published on the Climate Bonds Initiative website.
Climate Bond Certification: allows the issuer to use the Climate Bond Certification Mark in relation to that bond.
Climate Bond Certification is provided once the independent Climate Bonds Standard Board is satisfied the bondconforms with the Climate Bonds Standard.
Green Bond: A Green Bond is where proceeds are allocated to environmental projects. The term generally refers
to bonds that have been marketed as “Green”. In theory, Green Bonds proceeds could be used for a wide varietyof environmental projects, but in practice they have mostly been the same as Climate Bonds, with proceeds
going to climate change projects.
Technical Working Group (TWG): A group of key experts from academia, international agencies, industry andNGOs convened by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The TWG develops the Sector Criteria - detailed technical criteria
for the eligibility of projects and assets as well as guidance on the tracking of eligibility status during the term of
the bond. Their draft recommendations are refined through engagement with finance industry experts inconvened Industry Working Groups and through public consultation. Final approval of Sector Criteria is given by
the CBSB.
Industry Working Group (IWG): A group of key organisations that are potential issuers, verifiers and investors
convened by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The IWG provides feedback on the draft sector Criteria developed by
the TWG before they are released for public consultation

1

Table of Contents
1.

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................3

2.

THE NEED FOR SHIPPING CRITERIA ...........................................................................................................43.

ASSETS AND PROJECTS THAT CAN BE ASSESSED UNDER THESE CRITERIA ................................................44.

MITIGATION CRITERIA FOR VESSELS .........................................................................................................65.

MANAGED REDUCTION PLANS .................................................................................................................86.

DISCLOSURE ..............................................................................................................................................97.

ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE CRITERIA ..................................................................................................9

ANNEX 1. EEOI/AER DECARBONISATION TRAJECTORIES .................................................................................10
ANNEX 2. TWG AND IWG MEMBERS ...............................................................................................................122

1. Introduction
Investor demand for Green Bonds and Climate Bonds is strong and will increase in line withthe delivery of quality products into the market. However, investor concerns about thecredibility of green labelling are also growing. Standards, assurance & certification are
essential to improve confidence and transparency, which in turn will enable further strong
growth in the market.
The Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme is an easy-to-use screening tool thatprovides a clear signal to investors and intermediaries on the climate integrity of Certified
Climate Bonds.
A key part of the Standard is a suite of sector-specific eligibility criteria (‘the Criteria’). Eachset of Criteria sets climate change benchmarks for that sector that are used to screen assets
and capital projects so that only those that have climate integrity, either through theircontribution to climate mitigation, and/or to adaptation and resilience to climate change, will
be certified. Where a bond encompasses a mixed portfolio of assets across several sectors,
each sub-category of assets will be subject to the relevant Criteria for those assets.
The Criteria are determined through a multi-stakeholder engagement process, including
Technical and Industry Working Groups, convened and managed by the Climate Bonds
Initiative, and are subject to public consultation. Finally, they are reviewed and approved by
the Climate Bonds Standard Board.
The second key part of the Climate Bonds Standard is the overarching Climate Bonds
Standard document available at https://www.climatebonds.net/standard/about. This gives
the common fund management and reporting requirements that all Certified Climate Bonds
must meet, in addition to meeting the sector-specific Criteria.
This current document describes the Criteria that will be used by Climate Bonds Initiative tocertify low carbon and sustainable shipping assets and programmes1. It is supported by the
CBI Shipping Criteria Background Document, which provides a detailed summary of the
discussions supporting the development of these Criteria. A brochure providing a briefsummary of the criteria is also available online.
It is expected that the Criteria will evolve as new technologies, practices and evidence arise
during the application of them, and as new or improved methodologies and data collection
processes become available. This will increase the climate mitigation integrity of subsequentbond issuances. However, if changes are made to the Criteria following receipt ofCertification, certifications already awarded will not be revoked retroactively.

1 A programme is a set of actions (technological or operational) that are applied to a single ship or multiple ships,

e.g. retrofit technologies for an existing ship or fleet of ships or fleet/port-based initiatives such as speed
management.

3

2. The Need for Shipping Criteria
Maritime transport accounts for approximately 80% of global trade by volume and 70% byvalue. In 2017, total volumes transported reached 10.7 billion tons. The UN Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is forecasting a 3.8% Compound Average Growth Rate
(CAGR) for seaborne trade between 2018 and 2023.
While CO2 represented almost all of the industry’s GHG emissions (98%), methane (CH4)emissions from ships has increased recently due to the methane slip associated withincreased use and transport of liquefied gas in LNG carriers and other LNG-propelled ships.
There is potential for this trend to continue in the future if there is an increased uptake of
LNG-powered ships. However, there is potential for the sector to make significant GHG
reductions. These can be achieved through a combination of increasing the energy efficiencyof shipping and reducing the GHG intensity of the energy used by ships.
Decarbonising the shipping sector is crucial. According to the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO), the shipping industry’s governing body, the sector currently accounts forc2.2% of global emissions; left unchecked shipping emissions are expected to grow by 50250% by 2050. CO2 is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in shipping. The multiyear average estimate for all shipping for 2007–2012 was 1,015 million tonnes CO2 and 1,036
million tonnes CO2e for GHGs combining CO2, CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide).
As the shipping sector seeks to decarbonise, it will need clear guidance on how to ensure that
this economic sector remains aligned with the targets set out in the Paris Agreement. These
Criteria are designed to suit that need by providing ship owners and operator with a sciencebased and easy-to-use set of technical criteria which, if met, can be used to certify a financial
product that meets them. It is expected that such a labelling process will provide muchneeded information and confidence for investors looking to make climate-aligned
investments.

3. Assets and Projects that can be assessed under these Criteria
The Shipping Criteria can be used to assess the assets and projects described in Table 1 below.
This table uses the following classifications for ease of use as follows:• Green: almost certain to be compatible with a low carbon or climate-resilient
economy in all circumstances and therefore are automatically eligible for certification• Amber: potentially eligible, subject to meeting the eligibility criteria in this document.
• Red: ineligible for certification in any circumstance either because they are
incompatible with a low carbon or climate-resilient economy or because determining
their eligibility is outside the mandate of the Shipping Criteria.
Ships that are dedicated to the transport of fossil fuel and/ or otherwise support the fossil
fuel sector are excluded. It is recognised that some ship types that carry dry bulk commodities
may also be leased to transport both fossil-fuel and non-fossil fuel cargo, but the ship type
itself is - unlike an oil tanker - not dedicated to fossil fuel carriage and so is not excluded.

4

For this reason, product and chemical tankers are also not excluded (as these ship types may
also carry non-fossil fuel cargos).2
Assets used for the manufacture of ships are not within scope of the criteria. Other types ofport infrastructure (e.g. those not directly related to the direct supply of zero emissions
energy/fuel to a ship, such as warehousing or cranes), are also out of scope. See Table 2
below for these exclusions.
Table 1. Assets and projects included in the scope of the Shipping Criteria
AssetsExample Use of Proceeds

Mit.

Adapt.

Ships above 5,000 GT for
which data is collectedunder the EU MRV3
and/or IMO DCS datacollection regimes.4
Ships below 5,000 GT
if zero emissions.

Ships classified as Bulk Carriers, Chemical Tankers,
Containers, General Cargo, Ferry-pax only, Cruise,
Ferry-RoPax, Refrigerated Bulk, Ro-Ro and Vehicle,
and are not in the list of excluded assets in Table 2
below.
Zero emissions ships which are propelled andpowered by batteries, or zero-emissions fuels and are
not in the list of excluded assets in Table 2 below. 5
Infrastructure that is
Charging stations and refuelling assets that arededicated to refueling or
dedicated for storing and delivering chemical orrecharging zero emissions electric energy to power and propel ships, consistent
shipswith the definition of zero-emissions fuels.
Automatically fulfil requirements for Certification
Must meet CBI Shipping Criteria for Certification

Table 2. Types of assets and projects which are excluded from the Criteria
Assets
Crude Oil Tankers andLiquefied Gas Tankers
Dry Bulk Carriers IF
transporting more thanthe maximum thresholdof coalAssets dedicated tosupporting the fossil fuelsectorAssets dedicated to
manufacture of ships
Other port infrastructure

Explanation
Assets which are dedicated to transporting fossil fuels are not eligible
under the criteria. This is applicable to ships which are classified as LNG
Carriers or Crude Oil Tankers.
Assets where more than 25% of tonnage transported annually is coal orother fossil fuels. This threshold declines geometrically at 5.3% fromthe year 2020 onwards.
Assets used for the exploration or production of fossil fuels are noteligible under the criteria. This includes but is not limited to: Floating
Production, Supply and Offloading (FPSO) Vessels; Subsea, Umbilicals,
Risers, Flowlines (SURF) Vessels; Drilling Units; Platform Supply Vessels;
Well Intervention Vessels.
All manufacturing facilities and associated assets and projects.
Port infrastructure not directly related to the direct supply of zero
emissions energy/fuel to a ship, (such as warehousing, cranes or
terminal buildings).

2 As carriage of synthetic/bio equivalents to fossil fuels increases and as data and transparency on cargo activity

improves, exemption based on ship type alone will be reviewed, with the possibility of introducing additional criteria
on cargo types.
3 The EU MRV data regime is available for voyages that include ports within EU member states.
4 The IMO DCS data regime for ships performing international voyages.
5 These fuels are listed in “Managed Reduction Plan” guidance on page 9.

5

4. Mitigation Criteria for Vessels
In essence, issuers must demonstrate that the expected carbon-equivalent intensity of theship is aligned with the decarbonisation trajectory (emissions intensity threshold) of the ship’s
type/size category (“the ship’s class”) over the lifetime of the bond, reaching zero emissions
by 2050.6,,7 Issuers are required to show that each asset targeted for the Use of Proceeds froma Certified bond, is operating below the emissions intensity threshold in each respective yearthat the bond is outstanding. Ships that are not zero-emissions must provide a managed
reduction plan (MRP) that shows how the ship can remain under the emissions intensity
threshold during the operational life of the ship. The figure below provides an overview ofthe eligibility criteria for certifying a vessel under the Climate Bonds Standard andCertification scheme.

* For bonds where proceeds will be used for dry bulk carriers, issuers must show to verifiers that (a) coal did notconstitute more than 25% of dry bulk by tons carried by the firm over the previous 3 years, based on the bills of
lading, and (b) the volume of coal transported by the vessel does not exceed the declining threshold for allowablecoal carried. This threshold follows a geometric decay model starting at 25% in 2020, decreasing at 5.3% per year
as consistent with the IEA SDS and is based on the bills of lading.
6 In the case of a newbuild, the year of bond issuance may not be the same year the ship is operating. In this case,the ship must meet the alignment criteria from the first year the ship is expected to be in operation.
7 Refer to Annex 1. to identify the respective, initial emissions intensity for a certain size and class of ship. The
threshold declines to zero by 2050.

6

Methodological notes:
Performing under the appropriate emission intensity metric requires:• The carbon intensity of the ship (as measured by AER or EEOI) must be on or below
the decarbonisation trajectory for that ship’s type and size category for each
respective year that the bond is outstanding. These decarbonisation trajectories are
summarised in Annex 1. A linear trajectory should be assumed for time periods
between the dates and thresholds provided.
Greenhouse Gas emissions from the exhausts of ships in operation must be provided (seebelow). Emissions associated with supply chains of energy used by ships in operation, forexample those associated with the production, transport, distribution of energy/fuel are notcounted, neither are the emissions associated with the construction and disposal of ships.
The metric used for emissions from the exhausts of ships is the carbon-equivalent intensity(gCO2-e/tonne-nm)8 that represents its performance in real operating conditions. Moreinformation on the accepted metrics are given below in Table 3.
Table 3. Accepted reporting metrics for Shipping Criteria
MetricAnnualEfficiency
Ratio

Application
The Annual Efficiency Ratio (AER) measures carbon emissions associated withtransport work, but it uses a ship’s size (deadweight) as a proxy for cargo carried
and assumes that the ship is fully loaded on all journeys.

Any vessel 5,000 GT and above must report using IMO DCS data that enables AER
measurement, unless it operates 100% of the time on voyages that include the EU(in which case it must the EEOI).
EnergyIf the vessel operates 100% of the time on voyages that include the EU9, then it
Efficiency
must report using EEOI. Vessels which are not operating 100% of the time on
Operational voyages that include the EU can opt to report EEOI but are required to verify thisIndexdata independently.
EEOI represents the CO2 emitted per tonne-nautical mile for a voyage or specifictime period. It can either be calculated from fuel consumption measurements andinformation on cargo carried and distance travelled or estimated using satellite
tracking data and fleet technical specifications. EEOI therefore accounts for the real
operating conditions of the vessel and their impact on fuel consumption (e.g.,
speed, weather, draught).

In the case of passenger ships (i.e., cruise and ferry), gCO2-e/GT is used. GT is the gross tonnage of the ship, aproxy for number of passengers.
9 Applies to voyages which have a last port of call to a port of call under the jurisdiction of an EU Member Stateand from a port of call under the jurisdiction of a EU Member State to their next port of call, as well as within portsof call under the jurisdiction of an EU Member State.
87

5. Managed Reduction Plans
For any vessel that will not reach zero-emissions before the bond matures and is expected tohave an economic life beyond the period of the bond, the issuer is required to submit aManaged Reduction Plan (MRP) that outlines the retrofit technologies or a fuel switch optionthat the vessel will be able to take in order to remain compliant with the trajectory, andexplains how these plans are cost-effective.10
The technology options that are described by the issuer will be competitive solutions thattake into account costs and technical feasibility. While there is no requirement to assess andprove this feasibility, there is a minimum requirement for the plan to include specific costing
information. For example, a fossil-fuelled ship built in 2025, may plan to undertake a refit
after 5 years of operation at which additional fuel storage (for non-fossil fuel) is installed andan engine conversion undertaken. Efforts taken at design/build can ensure that space for thetanks and access to machinery can minimise the cost of that refit, such that the ship can becompetitive against newbuild ships entering the fleet in 2030 and operating on non-fossil fuel.
This reduction plan can rely on future technologies/fuels that are not available today but are
expected to become available and cost-effective in the future, in time for the continued
compliance with the decarbonisation trajectory. The list of candidate fuels for use in the MRP
will be regularly reviewed, but initially includes: Electric, Hydrogen, Methanol (from bio or
synthetic feedstock), Nuclear, Wind or Advanced Biofuels. 11
The costed reduction plan should include as a minimum the following details:• The time period (e.g. range of years) at which a significant fuel switch is expected tobe necessary• Any modifications required to fuel storage systems onboard (including any additional
space required and how this modified cargo carrying capacity)• Any modifications required to fuel handling systems (including bunkering systems)• Any modifications required to machinery• The estimated total additional cost (including both estimated operating costs andcapital costs)
At present, there is no evidence that synthetic hydrocarbons will become economicallycompetitive and available at sufficient volumes, so they are not considered eligible for use ina reduction plan. In an exceptional circumstance, a project may be specified where theparticular geography of operation (e.g. a ship limited to operate in a given sea area where
there is a local supply of a sustainable waste product that has value as a fuel) make a fueloutside of this list competitive in terms of sustainable supply (over the period of the ship’s
economic life). In this circumstance, the bond issuer can propose justifying an exception to
the listed fuels. Issuers citing Advanced Bioenergy in an MRP are encouraged to provide
certification of origin for the fuel procured.

10 Cost-effective, in this case, means that if the planned means to achieve compliance with carbon-equivalentintensity trajectories include some future retrofit or switch in energy source, this can be achieved without significant
additional costs (whether capital or operating costs) relative to foreseeable future assets, such that the asset should
remain competitive.
11 As listed in Part A, Annex IX of the EU Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001/EU).

8

6. Disclosure
All issuers of certified bonds must report to the Climate Bonds Initiative annually to confirm
that assets remain in compliance. Specifically, issuers are required to submit information
reported on an annual basis of their achieved EEOI or AER, alongside documentation that thedata has been submitted and verified for EU/IMO purposes through the EU MRV or IMO DCS
systems.
The use of such pre-existing systems also ensures that no additional data collection burden
should be required. However, if issuers decide to use EEOI, but do not meet the 100%
operating EU operating condition, an independent verification of their data is required. The
EU MRV Regulation requires mandatory third-party verification in order to ensure theaccuracy of the data submitted. It uses a specific verification system based on internationallyagreed ISO standards and EU specific verification rules.
In the IMO DCS there is no specific verification system for this data collection. Instead, Flag
Administrations shall verify the data according to national rules, taking into account IMO
guidelines. Flag States can outsource those tasks to “Recognised Organizations” (RO), subject
to verifications and audits under the RO Code. However, ROs do not need to be accredited by
National Accreditation Bodies. Note that, in accordance with the EU legislation, EU MS can
only use EU recognised organisations in order to comply with their reporting obligations
under IMO DCS.

7. Adaptation and Resilience
The Shipping Criteria currently do not require bond issuers to provide evidence that assets
are resilient to the impacts and risks associated with climate change and will not create harm
to or compromise the wider system’s adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change.
More information on this decision is available in the accompanying Background Document to
the Shipping Criteria.12 Infrastructure that is dedicated to refuelling or recharging zeroemissions vessels is derogated from the adaptation and resilience criteria.

12 This will be reviewed periodically and may by subject to change. Certifications will not be removed retroactively.

9Annex 1. EEOI/AER Decarbonisation Trajectories
The fleet type and size category median values in EEOI and AER for each decade starting from2020 to 2050 are included in Table 1 below.
Type

Size

Bulk carrier

0-9999 DWT
10000-34999
DWT
35000-59999
DWT
60000-99999
DWT
100000-199999
DWT
200000-+ DWT
0-4999 DWT
5000-9999
DWT
10000-19999
DWT
20000-+ DWT
0-999 TEU
1000-1999 TEU
2000-2999 TEU
3000-4999 TEU
5000-7999 TEU
8000-11999
TEU
12000-14500
TEU
14500-+ TEU
0-4999 DWT
5000-9999
DWT
10000-+ DWT
0-+ DWT
0-1999 GT
2000-+ GT
0-1999 GT
2000-9999 GT
10000-59999
GT
60000-99999
GT
100000-+ GT
0-1999 GT
2000-+ GT
0-1999 DWT

Bulk carrier
Bulk carrier
Bulk carrier
Bulk carrier
Bulk carrier
Chemical tanker
Chemical tanker
Chemical tanker
Chemical tanker
Container
Container
Container
Container
Container
Container
Container
Container
General cargo
General cargo
General cargo
Other liquid tanker
Ferry-pax only*
Ferry-pax only*
Cruise*Cruise*Cruise*Cruise*Cruise*Ferry-RoPax*
Ferry-RoPax*
Refrigerated bulk

2020
EEOI/AER
35.1 / 24.6

2030
EEOI/AER
23.4 / 16.4

2040
EEOI/AER
11.7 / 8.2

2050
012.2 / 6.6

8.1 / 4.4

4.1 / 2.20

9.2 / 4.6

6.2 / 3.1

3.1 / 1.5

0

8.4 / 3.6

5.6 / 2.4

2.8 / 1.2

0

4.6 / 2.4
4.1 / 2.3
40.3 / 35.4

3.1 / 1.6
2.7 / 1.5
26.8 / 23.6

1.5 / 0.8
1.4 / 0.8
13.4 / 11.8

00026.6 / 19

17.7 / 12.7

8.9 / 6.3

018.7 / 11.9
12.3 / 6.5
27.3 / 16.9
24.9 / 14.8
19.5 / 10
16.8 / 8.3
16.2 / 7.8

12.5 / 7.9
8.2 / 4.3
18.2 / 11.3
16.6 / 9.9
13 / 6.7
11.2 / 5.5
10.8 / 5.2

6.2 / 44.1 / 2.2
9.1 / 5.6
8.3 / 4.9
6.5 / 3.3
5.6 / 2.8
5.4 / 2.6

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

14.1 / 6.7

9.4 / 4.5

4.7 / 2.2

0

10.4 / 4.6
10.4 / 4.6
30.2 / 24.2

6.9 / 3.1
6.9 / 3.1
20.1 / 16.1

3.5 / 1.5
3.5 / 1.5
10.1 / 8.1

000

27.2 / 16.7
24.2 / 13.1
106.6/ 97.6
1272135.8
1740606.6
2044403.4
1286641.3

18.2 / 11.1
16.2 / 8.8
71.1 / 65.1
848090.51160404.4
1362935.6
857760.8

9.1 / 5.6
8.1 / 4.4
35.5 / 32.5
424045.3
580202.2
681467.8428880.4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1495064.7

996709.8498354.901738613.6
1337274.9
822123.91137003.8
72.8 / 48.7

1159075.7
891516.6
548082.6758002.5
48.5 / 32.5

579537.9445758.3
274041.3
379001.3
24.3 / 16.2

0
0
0
0
0

10

Ro-Ro
Ro-Ro
VehicleVehicle0-4999 GT
5000-+ GT
0-3999 Vehicles
4000-+ Vehicles

258.2 / 212.4
63.9 / 45.9
124.7 / 46
58.1 / 13.8

172.1 / 141.6
42.6 / 30.6
83.2 / 30.7
38.7 / 9.2

86.1 / 70.8
21.3 / 15.3
41.6 / 15.3
19.4 / 4.6

0
0
0
0

*For Ferry-pax only, Cruise, and Ferry RoPax, the denominator is GT*nm instead of tnm.
DWT – Dead Weight Tonnes (the weight of the cargo)
TEU – Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit
GT – Gross tonnage

11Annex 2. TWG and IWG Members
Lead Consultants:
Tristan Smith, University Maritime Advisory Services International
Sophie Parker, University Maritime Advisory Services International
Adaptation & Resilience Experts:
Adolf Ng, University of Manitoba
Mawuli Afenyo, University of Manitoba
Roozbeh Panahi, University of Manitoba
Technical Working Group Members:
Aoife O’Leary, Environmental Defense Fund
Andrew Gazal, ESG TechPeter Chant, Fremco
Alison Morris, Fremco
Johannah Christensen, Global Maritime Forum
Katharine Palmer, Lloyd’s Register
Michael Adams, Ocean Assets InstituteJames Mitchell, Rocky Mountain Institute
Diane Gilpin, Smart Green Shipping AllianceDavid Connolly, Southampton University
Bruce Anderson, Starcrest Consulting
Nicole Rencoret, Sustainable Shipping Initiative
Andrew Stephens, Sustainable Shipping Initiative
John Broderick

Industry Working Group Members:
Joop Hessels, ABN Amro
Katherine House, Affirimative IM
Michael Parker, Citi
Lars Mac Kay, Danske Bank
Knut Elvind Haaland, DNB
Lars Kalbakken, DNB
Nina Ahlstrand, DNB
Gust Biesbroeck
Kristoffer Olsen, ITM PowerTed Shergalis, Magnuss
Astrid Molstad, Molnex
Jacob Michaelsen, Nordea
Margrete Ellertsen, Nordea
Yoshiaki Hamano, NYK
Yusuke Matsui, NYK
Christopher Rex, Skibskredit
Sara Møller Jensen, Skibskredit
Nikos Petrakakos, Seabury Capital
Henrik Piper, Silverstream Tech
Jens Peter Neergard, Silverstream TechPaul Stuart-Smith, Zero Carbon FinanceWith thanks to:
Georgios Plevrakis, American Bureau of Shipping
Stephen Cadden, Sea LNG
Steve Esau, Sea LNG
Samuel Kenny, Transport & Environment
Faig Abbasov, Transport & Environment
Dominik Englert, World Bank
Andrew Losos, World BankMark Lutes, World Wide Fund for Nature

12