COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Full-length report Accompanying the document Report from the Commission 2023 Report from the European Commission on CO2 Emissions from Maritime Transport
Date: 2024-04-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, application of EU law, energy consumption, energy efficiency, environmental monitoring, greenhouse gas, marine fuel, maritime transport, pollution from ships, reduction of gas emissions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.4.2024  SWD(2024) 87 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Full-length report Accompanying the document Report from the Commission 2023 Report from the European Commission on CO2 Emissions from Maritime Transport {COM(2024) 151 final}  
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

2023 Report from the European 
Commission on CO2 Emissions from 
Maritime Transport  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table of contents 

1. 

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6 

1.1.  The 2023 Annual Report: scope and objectives ............................................ 6 

1.2.  Context .......................................................................................................... 7 

1.2.1.  2022: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the post-pandemic economic 
recovery ........................................................................................................................ 7 
1.2.2.  EU’s continuous support to decarbonise maritime transport through the ‘Fit for 
55 package’ ................................................................................................................... 8 
1.2.3.  Developments at the International Maritime Organization ................................ 9 

2.  CO2 emissions and related fuel consumption from the monitored fleet . 11 

2.1.  The Fleet: emissions and number of ships .................................................. 11 

2.2.  Ship types: emissions and number of ships ................................................ 13 

2.3.  Further analysis of CO2 emissions .............................................................. 17 

2.3.1.  2022 compared to 2021 ................................................................................. 18 
2.3.2.  Analysis over the period 2018-2022 ............................................................... 20 

2.4  Fuel consumption ........................................................................................ 22 

3.  The monitored voyages at a glance: shipping routes, speed and time spent 
at sea 

 ............................................................................................................ 26 

3.1.  Main shipping routes ................................................................................... 26 

3.2.  Fleet speed ................................................................................................. 27 

3.2.1.  Average speed by ship type ........................................................................... 27 

3.3.  Time spent at sea ........................................................................................ 28 

3.3.1.  Time at sea by ship type ................................................................................ 28 

4.  Technical and operational efficiency of the monitored fleet .................... 31 

4.1.  Technical efficiency ..................................................................................... 31 

4.1.1.  Overview ........................................................................................................ 31 
4.1.2.  Evolution of the Technical Efficiency of the monitored fleet ............................ 32 

4.2.  Operational efficiency .................................................................................. 33 

4.2.1.  Overview: EEOI and AER .............................................................................. 33 
4.2.2.  Evolution of the operational efficiency of the monitored fleet .......................... 34 

5.  Assessing the implementation of the EU Maritime MRV Regulation ....... 36 

5.1.  Key indicators on the MRV process in 2022 ............................................... 36 

5.1.1.  Punctuality ..................................................................................................... 36 
5.1.2.  Non-compliant emission reports and revisions ............................................... 36 

2 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

5.2.  Quality and completeness of EU MRV data ................................................ 36 

5.2.1.  Outliers .......................................................................................................... 36 
5.2.2.  Verifiers ......................................................................................................... 37 

References ........................................................................................................... 38 

Annex 1  Abbreviations and definitions .......................................................... 39 

Annex 2  Outcomes of the fourth compliance cycle ...................................... 41 

A.2.1 Fuel/emissions monitoring methods ............................................................ 41 

A.2.2 Shipping companies .................................................................................... 41 

A.2.3 Verifiers and National Accreditation Bodies ................................................ 42 

A.2.4 Port State Control inspections ..................................................................... 44 

Annex 3  Main extra-EU flows .......................................................................... 46 

Annex 4  Technical and operational efficiency of the monitored fleet ......... 48 

A.4.1 Technical efficiency (related to Section 4.1.1.) ............................................ 48 

A.4.2 Operational efficiency (related to Section 4.2.) ............................................ 56 

3 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Executive Summary 

Since 2018, the ‘EU Maritime MRV Regulation’,1 requires shipping companies to monitor and 
report their fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions 2 and other key parameters for their 
ships when sailing to/from and between ports of the European Economic Area (EEA). 

Every year, the European Commission publishes the reported aggregated data and prepares 
an annual report to analyse changes over the years. This report is the fifth one. It analyses 
the data from the period 2018-2022, following the release of the data in 2023.  

The monitored voyages for the 2022 reporting year emitted 135.5 million tonnes of CO2 into 
the atmosphere. These emissions were 7.1% higher than those reported in 2021 and 7.9% 
lower  than  those  reported  pre-COVID-19  in  2019  (the  2019  figure  did,  however,  include 
emissions related to the United Kingdom 3). The emissions reported for 2022 originated from 
a fleet of almost 12 800 ships, the highest number registered so far for a single reporting period 
(6.5% higher than in 2021).  

This  total  increase  in  CO2  emissions  for  the  period  2021-2022  hides  significant  disparities 
between the  different  ship types,  which reflect the  major  economic  trends  that  affected  the 
year 2022, and notably the consequences of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In 2022, 
9 of the 15 ship types reported higher emissions than in 2021. By ship type group, passenger 
ships (+172%), liquified natural gas (LNG) carriers (+59%), and bulk carriers (+13%) recorded 
the  highest  increase  in  emissions  compared  to  2021,  driven  by  the  increasing  number  of 
reporting  ships  and  higher  activity  levels.  The  increase  in  emissions  from  passenger  ships 
reflects the sector’s rebound (fully or partially) after the COVID-19 years, while the increase 
from  LNG  carriers  reflects  the  record  quantities  of  LNG  imported  into  the  EU  in  2022.  The 
activity of bulk carriers was notably affected by the impact of sanctions and geopolitical risks, 
which lead to changes in global shipping trends and increased distances travelled for many 
commodities, including energy products.   

Conversely, the most significant reduction in CO2 emissions was recorded by container ships, 
which emitted around 2.9 million tonnes of CO2 less than in 2021 (-7.6%), following a decrease 
in activity in European container ship ports, a decrease in the average distance sailed (-3.9%), 
and  a  reduction  of  the  average  speed  of  active  container  ships  (-4.7%).  In  2022,  CO2 
emissions from oil tankers were also at their lowest since 2018, notably affected by the impact 
of sanctions.  

Most ship types’ relative  contribution  to total  reported  emissions  remained stable overall  in 
2018-2022,  even  in  the  first  year  of  COVID-19  (2020)  and  in  the  years  following  the  UK’s 
withdrawal from the EU (2021 and 2022). Container ships, oil tankers, and bulk carriers were 
confirmed as the top emitters in 2022. They were responsible for around 55% of total reported 
emissions in 2022. Container ships alone were responsible for 28% of the total CO2 emissions. 
Two  ship  types  (passengers  ships  and  LNG  carriers)  stand  out  because  they  have  shown 
considerable yearly variations over the last three reporting periods.  

1 Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on the monitoring, reporting and 
verification of greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport, and amending Directive 2009/16/EC, OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 
55–76.  

2 Following the entry into force of amendments to Regulation (EU) 2015/757 in June 2023, the Regulation is not limited to CO2 
emissions anymore but also covers greenhouse gas emissions. The monitoring and reporting requirements are extended to non-
CO2 gases only starting the reporting period 2024. The present report, which considers data reported over the period 2018-2022, 
therefore only covers CO2 emissions as reported within the EU MRV scope.  

3 It was not possible to recalculate historical data before 2021 so as to exclude the emissions resulting from the application of the 
EU Maritime MRV Regulation to the United Kingdom. This is because the legislation does not require shipping companies to 
report emissions at voyage level. Therefore, throughout this report, the figures presented for the reporting years after 2020 are 
based  on  the  reported  data,  which  excludes  the  Regulation’s  application  to  the  United  Kingdom  (but  only  to  EEA  countries, 
including  the  EU-27).  By  contrast,  the  reported  data  for  the  reporting  years  2018,  2019  and  2020  includes  the  Regulation’s 
application to the United Kingdom, which is accounted for as part of the EEA (the EU-28). 

4 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The distribution of the fleet’s total CO2 emissions between the different types of voyages and 
at  berth  that  was  recorded  in  2022  was  almost  the  same  as  in  2021.  Voyages  starting  or 
ending  outside  the  EEA  represented  the  bulk  of  the  CO2  emissions  (around  two  thirds). 
Voyages between two ports in the EEA represented around a quarter of all CO2 emissions, in 
line with the share observed in 2021 after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. 
CO2 emissions occurring when ships are at berth in EEA ports represented around 6% of total 
emissions. These shares are in line with the volume of inward and outward flows recorded by 
Eurostat data. 

In terms of fuel consumption, the monitored ships consumed more than 43 million tonnes of 
fuel in 2022. Fuel consumption data for 2022 confirmed established trends for 2018-2021 – 
namely the shift towards light fuel oil, LNG, and diesel oil, which followed the introduction of 
the 2020 IMO limit on the sulphur content of fuel oil used onboard ships. The composition of 
the 2022 fuel mix, in comparison with 2021, highlights a decrease (from 26% to 22%) in the 
share of light fuel oil and an increase in the use of heavy fuel oil (from 48% to 50%). 2022 saw 
the highest recorded level of LNG consumed by the fleet (around +32% higher than in 2021), 
fuelled by an increase in the activity of LNG carriers combined with the accelerating uptake of 
LNG-use by container ships. The consumption of non-fossil bunker fuels remained negligible, 
as in all previous years.  

According to Eurostat data, the total 2022 volume of inward trade flows increased by 2.5% 
and was nearly the same as in 2019. Compared with 2021, the inflow from the United States 
(East Coast), Egypt, Norway, China, the UK, Brazil, and Canada (East  Coast) increased in 
2022,  while  the  inflows  from  Russia  (Black  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea),  Nigeria  and  Türkiye 
decreased. The total 2022 volume of outward flows decreased by 1.4% and was nearly the 
same as in 2019. It was primarily the outflows to China and the UK that decreased in 2022, 
but total outflows are still dominated by the outward flow to the UK. 

MRV data for 2018-2022 highlights the fact that speed variation was minor for most ship types. 
However,  it  is  to  be  noted  that,  following  an  increase  in  average  speed  in  2020  and  2021, 
container ships recorded in 2022 a 4.7% decrease in average speed in comparison with 2021. 
This was a major driver of the reduction in total emissions for this ship type in 2022 (-7.6% on 
2021). 

Between 2021 and 2022 the average time spent at sea decreased for 6 of the 15 ship types 
but increased for 8 ship types. Among the ship types that experienced a longer average time 
at sea in 2022, passenger ships, LNG carriers, and bulk carriers have spent the longest total 
time at sea since 2018. This indicates that there has been a recovery from the COVID-19 crisis 
and that the EU’s efforts to diversify its energy imports have been at least partially successful.  

The  graphical  analysis  of  key  technical  and  operational  efficiency  indicators  shows  that  no 
significant changes took place in 2018-2022. Furthermore, the completeness and correctness 
of  the  reported  data,  which  improved  over  the  period,  is  confirmed  by  increasing  data 
correlation values between key technical and operational efficiency indicators 4 and the size 
of the ships reporting under the EU Maritime MRV Regulation. 

Ships reported a better energy efficiency design index in 2022 when cumulated at fleet level 
(a 5.6% improvement on 2021) and their average size increased by 5.7% compared with 2018-
2021.  

In terms of implementation of the EU Maritime MRV Regulation, the 2022 results confirm the 
continuing  improvement  in  the  quality  of  data.  However,  punctuality  in  data  submission 
decreased after considerable improvements in the first four reporting years.  

4 The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and the Estimated Index Value (EIV) are assessed for the technical efficiency of 
ships.  The  Energy  Efficiency  Operational  Indicator  (EEOI)  and  the  Annual  Efficiency  Ratio  (AER)  are  assessed  for  their 
operational efficiency. 

5 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

1.  Introduction  

This report has been prepared using data from the implementation of the EU Regulation on 
the  monitoring,  reporting  and  verification  of  greenhouse  gas    emissions  from  maritime 
transport (Regulation (EU) 2015/757), hereafter called the “EU Maritime MRV Regulation”. All 
information was extracted on 19 September 20235. Data provided or updated after this date is 
not reflected in this report. 

1.1. The 2023 Annual Report: scope and objectives 

This is the fifth report on CO2 emissions from ships entering and leaving ports in the European 
Economic Area (EEA), collected under the EU Maritime MRV Regulation. 

This legislation requires shipping companies to track and report on key indicators such as CO2 
emissions,  fuel  consumption  and  other  relevant  information.  This  data  is  then  checked  by 
independent  verifiers  accredited  by  national  accreditation  bodies.  The  Commission 
subsequently publishes the verified data and analyses main trends in the form of an annual 
report6.  

Throughout  the  entire  process,  transparency  is  a  prerequisite  and  a  key  principle.  The 
currently  available  set  of  MRV  data,  is  contributing  to  an  enhanced  understanding  of  the 
climate impact of CO2 emissions from the shipping sector. The published raw data represents 
a valuable asset to universities and research organisations, public authorities and other market 
actors for  analyses  and studies  on  the maritime sector  and  its  environmental  performance. 
This data is important to support policy discussions and to track the effectiveness of climate 
policies.  In  addition,  it  constitutes  an  important  input  for  the  sector  in  order  to  take  more 
effective and efficient climate measures. 

The  present  report  covers  the  five  compliance  cycles  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  EU 
Maritime MRV Regulation, covering emissions from 2018 to 2022. It builds on the previous 
reports and allows for a comparison of data from these reporting years. The main objective of 
this report is to examine trends in emissions and energy efficiency characteristics over the five 
available reporting cycles, despite different disruptive events affecting the maritime sector over 
the period, such as the COVID-19 pandemic (from 2020 to 2022), the UK’s withdrawal from 
the Union (from 2021), and the Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine (from 2021).  

The scope of the EU Maritime MRV Regulation 

The  monitoring,  reporting,  and  verification  obligations  apply  to  ships  above  5 000  gross 
tonnage (GT) loading or unloading cargo or passengers at ports in the European Economic 
Area.  The  Regulation is flag-neutral,  which means that  ships  must monitor  and report  their 
emissions regardless of their flag.  

Despite  limiting  monitoring  requirements  to  large  ships  (above  5  000  GT),  the  Regulation 
covers  around  90%  of  all  CO2  emissions  in  the  EU  maritime  transport  sector,  whilst  only 
including around 55% of all ships calling into EEA ports. For reasons of proportionality and 

5 For the four previously published annual reports, related to the reporting periods 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 the same principle, 
i.e. a cut-off date has been applied. For the purpose of this annual report, however, updated data as of 19 September 2023 has 
been used for these four previous periods. This means that the 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 figures presented in this report might 
slightly differ from those published in the first, second, third, and fourth annual report. 

6 A detailed description of the monitoring, reporting and verification process (“The MRV system – Steps of the MRV process”) 
can be found in Annex 2 to the 2022 Annual Report from the European Commission on CO2 Emissions from Maritime Transport, 
at https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-03/swd_2023_54_en.pdf 

6 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

subsidiarity,  military  vessels,  naval  auxiliaries,  fish-catching  or  fish-processing  ships  are 
excluded from the Regulation. 

The Regulation covers CO2 emissions produced when a ship travels to or from an EEA port, 
while transporting goods or passengers for commercial purposes. For instance, it covers the 
emissions of a ship that travels from Rotterdam to Shanghai as well as the emissions produced 
when a ship sails from Shanghai to Rotterdam. 

However, if a ship departs from Shanghai for Rotterdam and makes a stop at another port 
outside the EEA (e.g., port “A” which is nearer to the EEA) for cargo or passenger operations, 
only the emissions related to the last leg of the voyage (in this case port A to Rotterdam) will 
be reported in the system. International voyages that take place within the EEA, such as a 
ship travelling from Le Havre to Rotterdam, are also covered, as well as domestic voyages, 
e.g., from Brest to Le Havre. Emissions produced by a ship in an EEA port are also covered, 
including when the ship is moored or anchored at a port whilst loading, unloading or hotelling.  

1.2. Context 

1.2.1.  2022: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the post-

pandemic economic recovery 

Throughout  2020  and  2021  the  maritime  shipping  sector  was  heavily  affected  by  the 
consequences  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  causing  supply  chain  disruptions,  travel 
restrictions and port congestions. Following clear recovery trends already visible in late 2021, 
2022  was  also  heavily  impacted  by  the  consequences  of  Russia’s  full-scale  invasion  of 
Ukraine. The combined effect of border closures, trade restrictions and increased fuel costs, 
negatively  affected  consumer  spending  and  demand  for  shipping  containers.  In  turn,  this 
impacted  trade patterns and volumes  especially  in late  2022,  thereby  dampening  the  post-
COVID-19 recovery of global trade (OECD, 2023) 

As a result, global seaborne trade, expressed in traded volumes, declined marginally by 0.4% 
in  2022  and  global  containerized  and  dry  bulk  shipments  declined  by  3.7%  and  2.9% 
respectively  (UNCTAD,  2023).  Eurostat  data  confirms  a  decrease  in  containerized  cargo 
handled in European ports (-7%) but, on the contrary, shows an increase in the dry bulk goods 
(+4.7%) compared to 2021  (Eurostat, 2023). In line with these findings, the number of port 
calls by container ships in the EU in 2022 was the lowest in the period 2018 to 2022 – around 
9% lower than in 2021. This is in contrast to the number of port calls made by bulk carriers, 
which were at their highest in the same year (+4.9% compared to 2021) 7. 

Tourism (both domestically and internationally) was still affected by travel restrictions linked 
to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  especially  in  the  first  half  of  2022  (OECD,  2022).  In  terms  of 
number of port calls in the EU, the cruise sector seems to have almost fully recovered in 2022: 
after dropping to the lowest activity levels of the analysed period in 2020 (-66% in number of 
port calls compared to 2019) and a partial rebound in 2021 (-40% compared to 2019), 2022 
port  calls  were  only  3.9%  lower than those  in  2019 (and  higher  2018  figures).  The  Ro-Pax 
sector, on the contrary, registered a full recovery in 2022, with a higher number of port calls 
than in 2019 (+2.5%).  

In  addition  to  the  above,  specific  subsectors  were  particularly  affected  by  sanctions 
implemented  following  Russia’s  full-scale  invasion  of  Ukraine  and  by  the  overall  security 

7 Port call data mentioned throughout this Report is sourced from MARINFO and covers ships above 5 000 GT calling at EEA 
ports. Port call data before 2021 are adjusted to exclude port calls in the United Kingdom.    

7 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

challenges brought on by the war.8 Dry bulk (grain  9) and oil tanker shipments (crude oil and 
other  refined  products)  were  particularly  affected  (UNCTAD,  2023),  leading  to  changes  in 
global shipping trends and increasing the distances travelled for many commodities, as the 
Russian Federation sought new export markets for its goods and Europe looked for alternative 
energy suppliers. Growth in ton-miles exceeded growth in tons in 2022 (UNCTAD, 2023). Gas 
imports to Europe  were also  particularly  hit:  as the  EU made efforts to diversify  its  imports 
away from Russian gas (General Secretariat of the Council, 2023) and new gas supplies (e.g. 
from the United States, Qatar or Nigeria) could not rely on pipeline connections, thus driving 
up liquified natural gas (LNG) seaborne imports – which increased  by 69% compared to 2021 
(IGU, 2023). 

1.2.2.  EU’s  continuous  support  to  decarbonise  maritime  transport 

through the ‘Fit for 55 package’ 

On  14  July  2021,  the  Commission  proposed  the  ‘Fit  for  55  package’,  a  set  of  legislative 
proposals  aiming  at  delivering  the  EU’s  2030  climate  objectives.  This  represents  the 
concretisation of the the European Green Deal into policies. Adopted in December 2019,  it 
aims to transform the EU into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy, and to 
achieve  climate  neutrality  by  2050.  Relevant  measures  proposed  under  the  ‘Fit  for  55 
Package’  aim  at  ensuring that maritime  transport  contributes  to the  EU’s increased climate 
ambition and to commitments under the Paris Agreement by addressing various barriers to 
the decarbonisation of the sector (technological, economic, legal barriers, etc.), and through 
two complementary  angles: first,  the  improvement  of  energy efficiency  (i.e.  using  less  fuel) 
and,  second,  increased  use  of  renewable  and  low-carbon  fuels  (i.e.  using  cleaner  fuels). 
These measures are expected to allow the creation of a virtuous ecosystem for such cleaner 
fuels, by looking at the entire value-chain and boosting fuel demand, distribution, and supply. 
In addition, the Commission will continue supporting research and innovation which supports 
the  decarbonisation  of  maritime  transport,  in  particular  through  Horizon  Europe  and  the 
Innovation Fund.  

The  year  2023  saw  significant  progress  in  interinstitutional  negotiations  on  the  above 
mentioned proposals. At the time of writing (November 2023), the European Parliament and 
the  Council  have  adopted  most  of  the  relevant  measures  affecting  the  maritime  transport 
sector. The revision of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)10 will extend the scope of the 
EU ETS to cover CO2 emissions from large ships entering EU ports, starting from 1 January 
2024  regardless of  the  flag  they fly.  The  FuelEU  Maritime  Regulation11  will  ensure that  the 
greenhouse gas intensity of energy used on-board ships gradually decreases over time, along 
with  an  obligation  for  passenger  and  container  ships  to  use  on-shore  power  supply  while 
moored at the quayside in major EU ports as of 2030. Due to the Regulation on Alternative 
Fuels Infrastructure12, maritime ports which welcome a minimum number of large passenger 
vessels,  or  container  vessels, must  provide shore-side  electricity for such vessels  by 2030. 

8 Also the composition of the 2022 MRV fleet that in 2022 was impacted by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in particular 
since with Council Regulation (EU) 2022/576, into effect as of 8 April 2022, the EU has closed its ports to Russia's entire merchant 
fleet.  The  EU  has  further prohibited  the  maritime  transport  of  Russian  crude  oil (from  5  December  2022) and  petroleum 
products (from 5 February 2023) to third countries. 

9 Grain exports from Ukraine came to a halt with the Russian aggression and resumed only after mid-2022 following the Black 
Sea Initiative.   

10 Through Directive (EU) 2023/959, OJ L 130, 16.5.2023, p. 134, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/959/oj. 

11 Regulation (EU) 2023/1805, OJ L 234, 22.9.2023, p. 48, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1805/oj. 

12 Regulation (EU) 2023/1804, OJ L 234, 22.9.2023, p. 1, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1804/oj. 

8 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The  revision  of  the  Renewables  Energy  Directive13  will  introduce  more  ambitious  sector-
specific targets in transport, including sub-targets for advanced biofuels and renewable fuels 
of non-biological origin.14 

Horizon Europe 15 is supporting the successful implementation of the policy objectives of the 
above  measures  through  research  and  innovation.  In  this  context,  the  Zero-Emission 
Waterborne Transport partnership 16, with a budget of €3.8 bn, was set to demonstrate zero-
emission solutions for all main ship types and services before 2030. 

Compliance with the new obligations on shipping companies stemming from the extension of 
the  EU  ETS  to  maritime  transport  and  the  FuelEU  Maritime  Regulation  will  build  on  the 
monitoring, reporting, and verification system established by the EU MRV Regulation, which 
was also revised in May 202317. Most notably, the revision affects the rules,  to implement the 
extension of the EU ETS to the maritime sector and to account for the inclusion of non-CO2 
emissions (methane - CH4 and nitrous oxide - N2O) in the revised system. The new monitoring 
and reporting rules will apply from the 2024 reporting period.  

1.2.3.  Developments at the International Maritime Organization  

Throughout  2022,  the  Commission  maintained  its  support  for  ambitious  progress  at 
international level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping through effective global 
measures. In July 2023 the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) took a first step on this 
path by committing - through a revised strategy18- to new targets for GHG emission reductions 
and  to  develop  and  adopt  a  basket  of  measure(s)  in  2025  aiming  at  delivering  on  these 
reduction targets.  

In more detail, the revised strategy aims to: 

1.  reach net-zero GHG emissions from international shipping by or around, i.e. close to, 

2050, with emissions peaking as soon as possible; 

2.  improve the carbon intensity of international shipping by reducing the CO2 emissions 
per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 
2030, compared to 2008; 

3.  increase  the  uptake  of  zero  or  near-zero  GHG  emission  technologies,  fuels  and/or 
energy sources to represent at least 5%, and striving for 10%, of the energy used in 
international shipping by 2030; and 

4.  improve  the  carbon  intensity  of  ships  through  further  optimisation  of  the  energy 

efficiency for new ships. 

To ensure that net-zero GHG emissions are reached as envisioned, two indicative checkpoints 
have been scheduled: 

1.  by 2030, total annual GHG emissions from international shipping should be reduced 

by by at least 20%, and strive for 30%, compared to 2008; and 

13Directive (EU) 2023/2413, OJ L 2023/2413, 31.10.2023, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202302413. 

14  The revision of the Directive on energy taxation, Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003, is still ongoing at the time 
of writing.  

15 Regulation (EU) 2021/695, OJ L 170, 12.5.2021, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj. 

16 Commission Decision C(2021) 4113 of 14.6.2021 on the approval and signature of eleven Memoranda of Understanding for 
Co-programmed European Partnerships for Research and Innovation. 

17 Regulation (EU) 2023/957, OJ L 130, 16.5.2023, p. 105, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/957/oj. 

18  The  IMO’s  Marine  Environment  Protection  Committee  (MEPC)  adopted  the  ‘2023  IMO  Strategy  on  Reduction  of  GHG 
Emissions from Ships’ (Resolution MEPC.377(80), MEPC 80/WP.12, Annex 1.  

9 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

2.  by 2040, total annual GHG emissions from international shipping should be reduced 

by by at least 70%, and strive for 80%, compared to 2008. 

To achieve these levels of ambition, short-, medium- and long-term policy measures will be 
developed as part of the strategy. 

In  this  context,  the  2023  GHG  Strategy  states  that  a  basket  of  candidate  measure(s), 
delivering  on  the  aforementioned  reduction  targets,  should  be  developed  and  finalized  by 
2025, comprising:  

1.  a technical element, namely a goal-based marine fuel standard regulating the phased 

reduction of the marine fuel's GHG intensity; and 

2.  an economic element, on the basis of a maritime GHG emissions pricing mechanism. 

As part of the development of mid-term GHG reduction measures, a comprehensive impact 
assessment of short listed measure combinations will be carrid out. 

10 

 
  
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

2.  CO2  emissions  and  related  fuel  consumption  from 
the monitored fleet 

2.1. The Fleet: emissions and number of ships 

In 2022, emission reports for 12 744 ships were submitted by 1 762 companies for a total of 
CO2 emissions from the EU MRV fleet of around 135.5 million tonnes (see Figure 1 and Figure 
3).19 

In terms of emissions, 2019 remains the year with the highest total CO2 emissions on record. 
After  a  drop  of  12.0%  in  total  emissions  in  2020  with  respect  to  2019,  mainly  due  to  the 
economic effects of COVID-19, emissions reached the lowest recorded level in the series in 
2021 (126.5 million tonnes). The further reduction of 2.2% observed between 2020 and 2021 
can largely be explained by reduced scope of the EU MRV after the UK’s withdrawal from the 
EU, combined with only a partial recovery from the COVID-19 downturn. The year 2022 cleary 
shows there was a rebound in emissions levels linked to further recovery from the COVID-19 
economic downturn. 135.5 million tonnes of CO2 in 2022 implies an increase in total emissions 
of  7.1%  compared  to  2021.  This  is  well  above  the  levels  registered  in  2020  (the  first  year 
affected by COVID-19) and only 7.9% lower than in 2019 (the last year including the United 
Kingdom under full MRV scope).  

Reported total fleet CO2 emissions for the period 2018-2022  

144.7

147.1

129.4

126.5

135.5

+1.6%               -12.0%                  -2.2%                   +7.1% 

]
s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o
i
l
l
i

m

[

s
n
o
i
s
s
i

m
e

2
O
C

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2018

2019

2020

2021
(without UK)

2022
(without UK)

Figure 1: Reported total fleet CO2 emissions; 2018-2022 

The distribution of the fleet’s total CO2 emissions over the different types of voyages and at 
berth are almost the same in 2021 and 2022 (see Figure 2) and shows the impact of the UK’s 
withdrawal from the EU from 2021 onwards, namely the decrease in emissions from intra-EEA 
voyages mirrorred by an increase in emissions from extra-EEA voyages (both incoming and 
outcoming)20. Across the period 2018-2022, the share of emissions from intra-EEA voyages 
reached its lowest level in 2021 (25.5%, against its peak of nearly 32% in 2018-2019), while 
extra-EEA voyages, both incoming and outgoing, contributed the highest share of emissions 

19 In this Fifth annual report, just as in the Fourth annual report, emissions reports of ships declaring zero emissions and no fuel 
consumption under the MRV scope have been discarded. The relevant figures and analysis from previous reporting years have 
been adjusted accordingly. A decreasing number of ships has reported zero emissions over time: 638 in 2018 down to 211 in 
2022. Only 21 ship have reported zero emissions in each of the five reporting periods.  

20 This is because, as a consequence of the UK withdrawal from the EU, voyages between the UK and an EEA country are no 
longer considered intra-EEA voyages but rather extra-EEA voyages.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

(35.0%  and  32.4%  respectively).  The  share  of  emissions  at  berth  compared  to  the  total 
remained stable over the five reporting periods (around 6%).  

Figure 2: 2018 to 2022 share of fleet emissions per voyage type and at berth 

The total number of ships submitting emission reports has remained relatively stable over the 
first four reporting years (around 12 000). In 2022 however, this number increased by 6.5% 
compared  to  2021,  reaching  the  highest  level  on  record,  despite  the  effect  of  the  UK’s 
withdrawal  from  the  EU.  The  first  year  of  implementation  of  the  EU  MRV  system  (2018), 
remains the period with the lowest number of submitted emissions reports. 

Figure 3: Total number of ships for which emissions report has been submitted; 2018-2022 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

2.2. Ship types: emissions and number of ships 

Most  of  the  15  ship types  reporting  under the  EU  Maritime MRV  Regulation recorded their 
highest emission levels in the years preceding COVID-19 and the UK’s withdrawal from the 
EU,  namely  in  2018  (5  types)  and  2019  (6  types)  (see  Figure  4).  However,  the  year  2022 
stands out for bulk carriers, LNG carriers and ’Other ship types’ as they recorded their highest 
emissions over all reporting periods. Combination carriers remains the only ship type for which 
emissions peaked in 2020 (0.1 Mt).  

Figure 4: Total emissions per ship type; 2018 to 2022; descending 2022 order; levels given for 2022 (without UK) 

For 9 of the 15 ship types, the year 2022 showed an increase in emissions compared to 2021 
(Figure 5). In particular, CO2 emissions from passenger ships and LNG carriers increased (by 
more than 4 Mt, +172% and +59% respectivaly on the previous year) and from bulk carriers 
(by  more  than  2  Mt,  +13%  on  the  previous  year).  Also  noticeable  is  the  reduction  in  CO2 
emissions from container ships, almost 3 Mt lower (-7%) compared to 2021. 

13 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 5: Change of emissions in 2022 compared to 2021 per ship type, in absolute and relative terms 

Figure 6 allows to further analyse changes in total emissions reported, by ship and voyage 
type (including a differentiation between CO2 emitted at sea and at berth), between 2021 and 
2022.  

Figure 6: Change in emissions by ship type, differentiated by type of voyage; 2022 (without UK) on 2021 (without UK); ship types 
sorted by change of total emissions 

Passenger ships show a relatively strong increase in emissions on intra-EEA voyages, which 
is an indication of further recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. 

14 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

LNG carrier feature a relatively high increase in emissions on extra-EEA voyages (incoming 
& outgoing), fuelled by the increase in LNG imports to Europe, due to the EU diversifying away 
from Russian gas which had previously been mainly transported by pipelines. 

Reported emissions from container ships have mainly decreased on extra-EEA voyages, but 
also on intra-EEA voyages, while bulk carriers show a relatively strong increase in emissions 
on incoming extra-EEA voyages  and a smaller increase in emissions on outgoing extra-EEA 
voyages.  

As illustrated by Figure 7 and 8, in 2022, container ships, even if decreasing from the previous 
year,  maintained  the  highest  proportion  in  the  fleet  CO2  emissions  (2022:  28%)  and  were, 
together with the emissions of oil tankers and bulk carriers, responsible for almost 55% of the 
2022 fleet emissions.  

Figure 7: Share of overall fleet CO2 emissions by ship type; 2022 (without UK), in % 

For  most  ship  types,  their  relative  contribution  to  total  reported  emissions  remained  stable 
across the five years, even in the first year of COVID-19 (2020) and in the years following the 
UK’s withdrawal from the EU (2021 and 2022). Two ship types (passengers ships and LNG 
carriers), on the contrary, showed considerable yearly variations in their contribution to total 
emissions reported by the MRV fleet, as a consequence of temporary disruptions brought on 
in the respective subsectors in the year 2020-2021 (for passanger ships) and in the last three 
reporting years (2020,2021,2022) for LNG carriers. In 2022, container ships and oil tankers 
stand out for reporting their lowest share of emissions out of the five reporting years, while 
bulk  carriers  and  LNG  carriers  reported  their  highest  share.  For  the  first  time  in  the  period 
2018-2022 bulk carriers surpassed oil tankers as the second largest emitter (see Figure 8).  

15 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 8: Ship types’ share in fleet CO2 emissions; 2018 - 2022 

In terms  of  number  of  ships active  in  the MRV system,  5  ship  types keep  representing the 
lion’s share: bulk carriers (31%), oil tankers (15%), container ships (14%), chemical tankers 
(11%) and general cargo ships (9%), account for 81.0 % of emissions reports submitted in 
2022; this trend follows from the previous four years, where these 5 ship types also dominated 
emission figures (see Figure 9). This demonstrates an overall stability in the composition of 
the active fleet per ship type under the EU MRV system.  

In  absolute  terms,  ship  types  which  recorded  the  highest  increase  in  the  number  of  active 
ships  between  2021  and  2022  were  bulk  carriers  (+404  ships  or  +11%),  oil  tankers  (+141 
ships or +8%), LNG carriers (+91 or +31%), passenger ships (+74 or +66%). Only general 
cargo ships showed a relatively high decrease in the number of ships (-86 or - 7%) (see Figure 
10).  9 out of the 15 ship types had the highest number of ships on record for that type in 2022. 
For  the  others,  the  highest  number  of ships  on record were in the following  years:  general 
cargo ships and refrigerated cargo ships in 2021, container ships and combination carriers in 
2020, and container/ro-ro cargo ships and Ro-ro ships in 2018 and 2019 respectively. 

Despite lower CO2 emissions, the number of container ships active in the system in 2022 is 
almost the same as in 2021 (+10 ships or +0.6%).  

16 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 9: Number of ships per ship type; 2018 to 2022; descending 2022 order; percentage change in 2022 compared to 2021  

r
e
i
r
r
a
c

k
l
u
B

s
p
i
h
s

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

500

400

300

200

100

0

-100

Absolute change in number of reporting ships per ship type, 2022 on 2021

r
e
k
n
a
t

l
i

O

r
e
i
r
r
a
c
G
N
L

p
i
h
s

r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

s
e
p
y
t

p
i
h
s

r
e
h
t
O

r
e
k
n
a
t

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C

p
i
h
s

o
g
r
a
c

o
r
-
o
r
/
r
e
n
i
a
t
n
o
C

r
e
i
r
r
a
c

o
g
r
a
c

d
e
t
a
r
e
g
i
r
f
e
R

p
i
h
s

o
g
r
a
c

l
a
r
e
n
e
G

r
e
i
r
r
a
c

n
o
i
t
a
n
i
b
m
o
C

r
e
i
r
r
a
c

e
l
c
i
h
e
V

r
e
i
r
r
a
c

s
a
G

p
i
h
s

x
a
p
-
o
R

p
i
h
s

r
e
n
i
a
t
n
o
C

p
i
h
s

o
r
-
o
R

Ship type

Figure 10: Change in number of ships per ship type; 2022 (without UK) on 2021 (without UK) 

2.3. Further analysis of CO2 emissions 

In  principle,  the  annual  reported  fleet  CO2  emissions  can  vary  over  time  due  to  four  main 
factors, the last three of which also have an impact on the average emissions per ship:  

1.  More/fewer ships active within the scope of the EU Maritime MRV Regulation; 

2.  Active ships within the scope of the Regulation are used to a different degree; 

17 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

3.  Active ships within the scope of the Regulation are more/less energy efficient; 

4.  Active ships within the scope of the Regulation use energy carriers that are more/less 

carbon intensive. 

Below, changes in CO2 emissions are further analysed for specific ship types, first focussing 
on  the  latest  developments  (2022 compared  to 2021), followed  by an  analysis  of  identified 
trends in the first five reporting periods.  

The  reported  data  thereby  allows  to  determine  factors  that  mainly  explain  the  observed 
changes, but does not allow to draw conclusions on the underlying factors, like the change in 
the  geographical  scope  of  the  EU  Maritime  MRV  system  (for  the  years  2021  and  2022 
following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU).  

2.3.1.  2022 compared to 2021 

The analysis of key changes in emissions per ship type in reporting year 2022 compared to 
2021 focuses on those ship types featuring the highest decrease (see Table 1) and highest 
increase (see  

Table 2) in absolute CO2 emissions. 

Container ships key indicators are shown below (see also Figure 5).  

Table 1 Analysis of 2022 CO2 emissions decrease 

Ship types featuring highest decrease of absolute CO2 emissions compared to 2021 

Ship 
type 

Change of 
CO2 
emissions 
compared to 
2021 

Change of 
number of 
reporting 
ships 
compared to 
2021 

Change of 
average per 
ship 
emissions 
compared to 
2021 

Change of 
average 
distance 
sailed 
compared to 
2021 

Container 
ships 

-2.88 Mt 
(-7.6%) 

+10 
(+0.6%) 

-1.7 kton/ship 
(-7.6%) 

-1 497 Nm/Ship 
(-3.9%) 

Change of 
average 
emissions 
per 
nautical 
mile 
compared 
to 2021 
-0.02 
tonne/Nm 
(-3.3%) 

Analysing the emissions decrease of the container ship fleet in 2022, it can be concluded that: 

1.  The decrease in emissions of container ships cannot be explained by a change in the 
number  of  reporting  ships,  which  is  almost  the  same  as  in  2021  -  the  decrease  in 
average  emissions  per  ship  is  in  line  with  the  container  fleet’s  overall  decrease  in 
emissions. 

2.  The decrease in average emissions per container ship is due to a combination of both 
a decrease in average distance travelled within the scope of the EU Maritime MRV and 
a decrease in average emissions per nautical mile.  

3.  According to Eurostat (2023), in 2022, 7% less containerised cargo (in tonnes) was 
handeld in EU-27 ports compared to 2021. This could possibly explain the decrease 
in average distance sailed by container ships. 

4.  The average speed of container ships was 4.7% lower than in 2021 (see 3.2.1), leading 
to  higher  fuel  consumption  savings,  which  contributed  to  the  lower  emissions  per 
nautical mile.  

In  absolute  terms  (Mt),  Passenger  ships,  LNG  carriers,  and  bulk  carriers  had  the  largest 
increase in CO2 emissions on a per ship type basis between 2021 and 2022 (see Figure 5).  

18 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 2 Analysis of 2022 CO2 emissions increase 

Ship types featuring highest increase of absolute CO2 emissions compared to 2021 

Ship 
type 

Change of 
CO2 
emissions 
compared 
to 2021 

Change of 
number of 
reporting ships 
compared to 
2021 

Change of 
average 
per ship 
emissions 
compared 
to 2021 

Change of 
average 
distance 
sailed 
compared to 
2021 

Change of 
average 
emissions 
per nautical 
mile 
compared to 
2021 

Units 

Mt (% 
change) 

Ships (% 
change) 

Kton/Ship 
(% change) 

nm/Ship 
(% change) 

ton/nm 
(% change) 

Passenger 
ships 

+4.4 
(+172%) 

LNG 
carriers 

Bulk 
carriers 

+4.0 
(+59%) 

+2.19 
(+13%) 

+74 
(+66%) 

+91 
(+31%) 

+404 
(+11%) 

+14.5  
(+64%) 

+5 
(+22%) 

+0.1 
(+1.8%) 

+18 504  
(+83%) 

+7 592  
(+26%) 

+234 
(+1.5%) 

-0.12  
(-12%) 

-0.02  
(-2.3%) 

-0.0001 
(-0.02%) 

Analysing the emissions increase for these three ship types, it can be concluded that: 

1.  The increase in emissions of the passenger ship fleet and the LNG carrier fleet can be 
explained by a combination of an increase in the number of ships that have been active 
within the scope of the EU Maritime MRV Regulation, as well as an increase of the 
average emissions per ship.  

2.  The average emissions per ship of the passenger ship fleet and the LNG carrier fleet 
have increased due to the higher average distance sailed. For passenger ships, this is 
probably related to further recovery from the COVID-19 crisis and for LNG carriers it is 
likely related to altered trade patterns, such as increased imports from the US.  

3.  The average passenger ship speed was cleary higher in 2022 than in 2021 (see 3.2.1). 
At the same time, 2022’s average emissions per nautical mile were significantly lower 
than  in  2021.  This  indicates  that  passenger  ships  with  a  higher  technical  energy 
efficiency or improved carbon intensity of energy consumption might have been active 
within the 2022 EU Maritime MRV. 

4.  The  increase  in  emissions  of  the  bulk  carrier  fleet  can  mainly  be  explained  by  an 
increase in the number of ships that were active within the scope of the EU Maritime 
MRV Regulation. The increased volume of dry bulk goods (+4.7%) handled in EU-27 
ports in 2022 (Eurostat, 2023) seems therefore to have been met by a higher number 
of bulk carriers rather than by a more intensive use of the same bulk carriers. A small 
increase  in the  average  emissions  per  ship  also  contributed  to  the  increase  in total 
emissions, which can mainly be explained by a higher average distance sailed by bulk 
carriers in 2022. Such trends in the EU MRV bulk carrier fleet are in line with those 
reported at the global level, where bulk carrier trade returned to pre-COVID-19 levels 
by the end of 2022 (UNCTAD, 2023).  

19 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

2.3.2.  Analysis over the period 2018-2022 

2022  was  the  EU  Maritime  MRV  system's  fifth  reporting  period.  An  analysis  of  the  data 
reported in the period 2018 to 2022 potentially allows to identify certain trends over time. An 
anlysis of trends is, however, limited due to two factors: first, the year 2021 saw a change in 
the geographical scope of the Regulation, due to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU21 and, 
second, the composition of the active fleet within the scope of the EU Maritime MRV system 
changes annually. To date, only 5 213 ships have reported in each of the five reporting periods 
which corresponds to between 41% and 45% of the total number of ships for which a report 
has  been  submitted  in  a  year.  Due  to  these  limitations,  the  following  analysis  focusses  on 
potential trends of average per ship indicators. 

An  analysis  of  the  average  annual  CO2  emissions  per  ship  type  (see  Figure  11)  reveals  a 
cluster of 9 ship types with similar average emissions of between 5 000 and 10 000 tonnes 
CO2 per ship in 2022. The remaining 6 ship types feature much higher average annual CO2 
emissions, ranging from 17 600 tonnes CO2 for container/ro-ro cargo ships to 37 100 tonnes 
for  passenger  ships  in  2022.  Out  of  these  6  ship  types,  only  container  ships  show  a 
continuously decreasing trend of the average annual CO2 emissions (-20 % in the period 2018-
2022), which is also matched by a reduction of the average distance travelled (see on this also 
section  2.3).  Average  annual  CO2  emissions  of  general  cargo  ships,  LNG  carriers  and 
especially  of  passenger  ships  show  strong  fluctuations  over  time,  an  indication  that  the 
relevant  market  segments  have  been  affected  by  disruptive  trends  in  the  period  (such  as 
COVID-19 economic downturn and the Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine). The average 
emissions  of  passenger  ships  were  almost  4  times  lower  in  the  2020  COVID-19-year 
compared to 2018, almost rebounding to 2018 levels by 2022. The average CO2 emissions 
per ship within the scope of the EU Maritime MRV Regulation may vary over time for three, 
not mutually exclusive reasons: the activity of the ships (i.e. fuel consumption, which mainly 
depends on distance travelled), the energy efficiency of the ships, and the carbon intensity of 
the energy used onboard ships. 

21  Due to  the  UK’s  withdrawal  from  the EU,  the  geographical scope of the EU  Maritime  MRV  Regulation  has changed  in the 
reporting period 2021: voyages within the UK and between the UK and other non-EEA countries now fall outside the scope of the 
system and voyages between the UK and EEA countries are no longer considered as intra-EEA voyages but incoming/outgoing 
extra EEA voyages. 

20 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Average annual CO2 emissions per ship by ship type for the period 2018-2022

p
i
h
s

r
e
p
2
O
C
e
n
n
o
t
o
l
i
k

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Ship type

Bulk carrier
Combination carrier
Container/ro-ro cargo ship
General cargo ship

Chemical tanker
Container ship
Gas carrier
LNG carrier

Figure 11: Average annual CO2 emissions per ship per ship type 

Figure  12  presents  the  how  the  average  age  of  ships  (from  built  date)  evolved  over  the 
analysed period, by ship type.  

The analysis of the average age per ship shows that there are minimal changes (from built 
date) by ship type between 2018 and 2022 and confirms trends valid for the world shipping 
fleet (UNCTAD, 2023), both in terms of differences between ship types and increasing average 
age.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 12: Average age (from built date) per ship type; descending 2022 order 

12 ship types, representing 96% of 2022 reported emissions, have recorded a higher average 
age within the type in 2022 compared to what was reported in 2018 and for eight of these ship 
types, the age of active ships has been continuously increasing year after year over the period. 
Only 3 ship types (combination carriers, passenger ships, and other ship types) recorded a 
decreasing age compared to what was reported in 201822 . Chemical tankers, oil tankers, LNG 
carriers, bulk carriers, gas carriers and combination carriers are currently the types with the 
highest  rate  of  newly  built  ships  (average  age  ranging  between  9  and  12  years),  while 
refrigerated cargo ships, passenger ships, ro-pax and ro-ro ships are generally much older 
(18 to 24 years). 

An analysis of the fleet size, in terms of tonnage (from dead weight tonnage or dwt), shows 
that the average size per ship for the entire MRV fleet has remained rather stable in the period 
2018-2021 but registered an increase of +5.7% compared to the average value for the four 
preceeding  years.  At  ship  type  level,  9  ship  types,  accounting  for  81%  of  total  reported 
emissions,  recorded  an  increase  of  average  size  in  2022  compared  to  the  average  for  the 
period 2018-2021. The 5 ship types (container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers, ro-pax ships, 
and chemical tankers) responsible for the lion’s share of reported emissions (72% in 2022) 
recorded an increase in the average size both compared to the average for the period 2018-
2021 and compared to 2021 alone.  

2.4  Fuel consumption 

In 2022, inflation rates increased significantly in some regions and bunker fuel prices, both for 
traditional marine fossil fuels and LNG, reached a peak by mid-2022. The impact of such fuel 
prices changes on the fuel consumption is, however, not straightforward, since choices on fuel 

22 In the case of passenger ships it is worth stressing that the fleet composition greatly changed in the years most affected by 
COVID-19 (2020 and 2021), when many ships reporting in previous years remained inactive.   

22 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

consumptions are impacted by various factors amongst which the relative price increase, the 
flexibility of the ships’ propulsion systems, the ability to pass on the costs.  

In 2022, the EU MRV fleet consumed in total around 43 700 kilotonnes (43.7 million tonnes) 
of fuel within the geographical scope of the Regulation, 7.2 % more than in 2021 (Figure 13). 

Figure 13: 2018 to 2022 total fuel consumption of EU MRV fleet and shares per fuel type 

While  the  shares  of  different  fuel  types  were  quite  similar  in  2020  and  2021,  there  was  a 
noticeable decrease in the share of light fuel oil in 2022, accompanied by an increase in the 
share  of  heavy  fuel  oil,  gas  oil  and  LNG.  The  year  2020  is  marked  by  the  application  of 
MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14, which sets limits on the sulphur content of bunker fuel oils 
and  in  particular  of  some  of  its  requirements  becoming  stricter  at  the  beginning  of  2020 23, 
leading to a large reduction in the use of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) and a significant increase in 
the use of Light Fuel Oil (LFO), which persisted in the years after 2020.  

For all ship types, except LNG carriers, Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) is the fuel type with the highest 
share of total 2022 fuel consumption.  

The share of LNG in the fuel consumption of the entire fleet increased every year over the 
period 2018-2022, with the exception of 2021, because of the reduction of LNG consumed by 
LNG carriers, in line with the decrease of seaborne LNG imports to Europe, in that year (IGU, 
2022).  As  a  result,  the  amount  of  LNG  consumed  by  the  fleet  over  the  period  2018-2022 
increased by 82.6% and its relative share of the total went from 3.4% (2018) to 6.8% (2022). 

In 2022 the fuel consumption of LNG carriers, which transport LNG and can also use LNG for 
propulsion purposes, remained highly dominated by LNG (69% of total fuel consumption in 
tonnes).  This  is  in  line  with the  previous  years,  where  the  LNG  consumption  share  of  LNG 
carriers ranged from 61% in 2019 to up to 76% in 2021. The share of LNG carriers in the total 

23 Outside Emission Control Areas, the maximum allowed sulphur content of the fuel has been reduced from 3.5% to 0.5% m/m. 
To comply  with this sulphur  limit, ships can  either  use  energy carriers  with  a  lower sulphur content  (Very  low  sulphur fuel  oil 
(VLSFO), low sulphur marine gas oil, LNG, LPG, methanol or ethanol) or can keep on using heavy fuel oil in combination with an 
exhaust gas cleaning system. 

23 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

LNG consumption is comparable to the 2018 share, with LNG carriers accounting for the great 
majority of LNG consumption (see Figure 14). Total 2022 LNG consumption by LNG carriers 
within  the  scope  of  the  EU  MRV  Maritime  Regulation  has  increased  by  43%  compared  to 
2021, which is a significanlty higher growth rate compared to the overall fuel consumption of 
the fleet. In 2022, the number of LNG carriers that reported to have consumed LNG increased  
from 283 to 360. 73 of these extra 77 ships reported LNG consumption for the first time in 
2022 and the majority of these ships (68) also reported for the very first time under the EU 
Maritime  MRV.  We  can  therefore  assume  that  such  ships  have  been  active  due  to  the 
unprecedented increased LNG demand in Europe met by seaborne imports as a consequence 
to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine (see on this section 1.2.1). 

Figure 14: Total LNG consumption and distribution of the consumption over LNG and non-LNG carriers 

As Figure 15 illustrates, beyond LNG carriers, ten out of the fourteen other ship types used 
LNG. The LNG consumption of non-LNG carriers almost doubled (+91%) between 2018 and 
2019, which was followed by a gradual increase in 2020 and 2021 and a decrease in 2022, 
reaching a level comparable to 2020.  

The  share  of  container  ships  in  the  LNG  consumption  of  non-LNG  carriers  is  significantly 
higher than in the previous reporting periods. While in 2020, only eight container ships used 
LNG within the scope of the EU Maritime MRV Regulation, this number inreased to 25 in 2021 
and 30 in 2022. This is in line with the deployment of LNG-fuelled container ships in the world 
fleet,  which  has  significantly  increased  in  the  last  three  years.  As  of  July  2023,  196  LNG-
fuelled container ship were on order, representing 24% of total LNG-fuelled ships on order in 
the world (DNV, 2023).  

24 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 15: LNG consumed by ship types other than LNG carriers 

The share of LPG (0.04%), ethanol (0.00%), methanol (0.02%), and ‘Other fuel types’ (0.66%) 
in the fleet’s overall fuel consumption for the year 2022 remains neglible.  

Though  the  volume  used  remains  negligible  (18.2  kilotonnes  in  2022),  LPG  use,  either  as 
butane or propane, within the EU Maritime MRV scope has more than doubled between 2020 
and 2021 and increased by a factor 6 between 2021 and 2022. The sector only very recently 
(2020) started to use LPG as a marine fuel. As of July 2023, worldwide, 91 LPG-fueled ships 
were in service and another 96 on order, most of them LPG carriers.  (DNV, 2023) 

After  the  EU  MRV  fleet  reported  a  methanol  consumption  close  to  zero  in  2021  (0.1 
kilotonnes),  the  year  2022  recorded  a  new  peak,  with  6.8  kilotonne  being  reported  (+82% 
compared to  2018). As of July 2023, there were 27 ships in service worldwide that can be 
methanol fuelled24, 23 of which are methanol carriers, and 151 more methanol fuelled ships 
were on order worldwide, many of them container vessels (DNV, 2023). 

No ethanol consumption was reported in the year 2022: the only reporting year which recorded 
ethanol consumption in the EU Maritime MRV remains 2020 with 0.56 kilotonnes.  

Under the category ‘Other fuel types’ ships report alternative fuel types which do not match 
any of the other categories. Its highest volume (485 kilotonnes) was reported in 2020, while a 
relative low level (288 kilotonnes) was recorded for this fuel type in 2022, comparable to levels 
recorded in 2018 (274 kilotonnes).  

24 Ships that can be methanol fuelled do not necessarily use methanol as the dual fuel engine which is required can also be 
powered by other fossil fuels (such as HFO or LFO). 

25 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

3. The  monitored  voyages  at  a  glance:  shipping  routes, 

speed and time spent at sea  

3.1. Main shipping routes 

Similar  to  what  was  reported  in  the  previous  four  annual  emission  reports,  MRV  voyages 
analysis continues to largely corroborate the data provided by Eurostat in terms of EU trade 
flows by gross weight of freight handled in main ports (see Figure 16). It shows a high demand 
for waterborne transport services between the EU and countries such as Russia, the United 
States and neighbouring non-EU countries such as the United Kingdom, Norway and Türkiye.  

Table 7 in Annex 3 provides the 15 main extra EU-27 flows by gross weight handled (in millions 
of tonnes) in main ports in the years 2018 to 2022. Eleven of the flows are inward flows, while 
four are outward flows.  

Figure 16: Main extra EU flows; Source: Eurostat (2023) 

The total 2022 volume of inward flows increased by 2.4% and is nearly the same as in 2019 
(0.4% higher than in 2019). The 15 countries related to these flows remained stable over the 
last five years, though their position in terms of the annual volume of the flow varies over time. 
Compared to 2021, 2022 inflows from the United States (East Coast), Egypt,  China, Norway, 
the UK, Canada (East Coast), and Brazil increased, while the inflows from Russia (Black Sea, 
Baltic Sea), Türkiye, and Nigeria decreased. As a consequence, inflows from the United States 
(East  Coast)  and  the  UK  surpassed  the  inflow  from  Russia  (Black  Sea) for  the first  time  in 
2022.  

The  total  2022  volume  of    outward  flows  decreased  by  1.4%  and  is  nearly  the  same  as  in 
2019. The main outflows to decrease in 2022 were to China and the UK, but total EU outflows 
are still dominated by the outward flow to the UK. 

26 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

3.2. Fleet speed 

3.2.1.  Average speed by ship type 

The  speed  at  which  ships  sail  is  an  important  determinant  of the  ships’ operational  energy 
efficiency. By reducing their speed, ships can signficantly reduce the fuel consumption of their 
main engines. This leads, in many cases, to a net reduction of the ships’ fuel consumption, 
and therefore CO2 emissions, even if the fuel consumption of the ships’ auxiliary engines may 
increase due to longer transit times and/or extra ship capacity has to be used to carry out the 
same amount of transport work. 

Speed is a parameter which is difficult to compare between different ship types since different 
ship designs and business models play an important role. Ro-pax ships and refrigerated cargo 
ships are, for example, known to sail fast compared to tankers or bulk carriers (see Figure 17), 
serving very different markets.  

Figure 17: Average speed by ship type; 2022 (without UK); sorted by average speed 

Speed variation over time is a relevant indicator to help explain the evolution of operational 
energy efficiencyover the analysed period. In this context, the average speed by ship type was 
calculated based on figures reported by the monitored fleet (time spent at sea and distance 
travelled).  

Figure 18 provides an overview for the five reporting years whereas Figure 17 zooms in on 
2022, illustrating the differences between the ship types and giving the 2022 average speed 
per ship type. 

Variations in the average speed over the period 2018-2022 differ between ship types:  

•  The largest difference between the highest and lowest average speeds over the period 

was observed for gas carriers and combination carriers (more than 2 knots); 

27 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

•  The  smallest  difference  between  the  highest  and  lowest  average  speeds  over  the 
period  was  observed  for  Ro-ro  ships  and  refrigerated  cargo  carriers  (less  than  0.5 
knots). 

For most of the ship types, the highest average speed was recorded in 2021; only passenger 
ships, Ro-pax ships, vehicle carriers and chemical and oil tankers showed the highest average 
speed  before  2021;  none  of  the  ship  types  recorded  their  highest  average  speed  in  2022. 
None of the ship types showed a continuously decreasing trend for their average speed over 
the period 2018 to 2022.  

Figure 18: Average speed by ship type; 2018-2022; alphabetical order 

3.3. Time spent at sea 

3.3.1.  Time at sea by ship type 

The time that the ships are active within the scope of the EU Maritime MRV Regulation during 
a  reporting  period  can  be  expected  to  differ  between  ship  types  due  to  their  different 
operational profiles. This pattern clearly shows if you compare the average time at sea of the 
different ship types (see Figure 19): ship types that often sail according to a regular schedule 
(liner ships, ferries) show a higher average time at sea, while ships which engaged in tramp 
trade spend a lower average time at sea. Goods shipped by dry bulkers are often traded on 
the spot market, leading to a high fluctuation in the number of individual bulk carriers that are 

28 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

used for trade to/from Europe. As a result, individual bulk carriers have the lowest average 
time at sea within the scope of the EU MRV, although the total time at sea of the entire bulk 
carrier fleet is the highest of all ship types (see Figure 20). 

Changes in the average time at sea for the different ship types across the reporting years can 
be related to different factors: the amount of idle time25, shifts in trade patterns within the scope 
of the EU MRV (e.g. trade on shorter intra-EEA routes), and/or shifts in activity outside of the 
EU MRV. Such shifts can be linked to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and/or shifts in the 
economic activities between regions (e.g. loss of market share of EU seaborne exports to a 
non-EEA country to the benefit of another region but also changes in trade patterns due to 
security hazards, such as war). 

Between  2021  and  2022  the  average  time  spent  at  sea,  within  the  scope  of  the  EU  MRV, 
decreased for 6 out of the 15 ship types, while it increased for eight ship; and remained stable 
for container ships. The increase in average time at sea was especially  high for passenger 
ships and LNG carriers. The former probably being related to the further recovery of the sector, 
while the latter probably due to modified trade patterns (e.g. increased imports from the US).  

Figure 19: Average time at sea by ship type; 2018-2022; sorted by 2022 average time at sea 

25 Time at anchorage is not part of the time at sea. 

29 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Regarding  the total  time  the  ship  types  spent  at sea  (total time  for the  entire fleet  over the 
year) within the EU Maritime MRV (see Figure 20), passenger ships and LNG carriers also 
stand out. These two ship types, along with bulk carriers, reported the highest total time at sea 
in 2022, out of the first five reporting periods. 

Figure 20: Total time at sea by ship type; sorted by 2022 total time at sea 

30 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

4. Technical  and  operational  efficiency  of  the  monitored 

fleet 

The energy/carbon efficiency of ships can be measured in terms of technical or operational 
efficiency and by means of various indicators. Technical efficiency indicators aim at measuring 
the energy consumption/the emissions of a ship, depending on its design, whereas operational 
efficiency  indicators  also  account  for  how  a  ship  is  operated.  For  all  the  indicators  in  this 
section, the lower the value, the higher the efficiency of the ship.  

The year 2022 represents the fifth reporting year of the EU MRV system, a substantial amount 
of data on reporting ships has become available, allowing for an assessment of the evolution 
of both the technical and operational efficiency of the monitored fleet, and also the robustness 
of the reported data.  

As  in  previous  years,  such  an  analysis  was  carried  out  by  means  of  a  graphical  analysis, 
plotting the relevant indicators per ship type against the cargo carrying capacity. This year’s 
analysis, the most representative results of which are shown in Annex 4, further corroborates 
two key findings which were highlighted in the fourth annual report: (1) The completeness and 
correctness of the reported data, which has been clearly improving over time, confirmed by 
the  subsequent  data  correlation  values’  gradual  increase,  particularly  when  comparing  the 
initial 2018 with 2022; (2) as in previous years, technical and operational efficiency trends did 
not significantly change, as shown by the different reporting periods’ regression curves overlap 
(as shown in Annex 4). 

Combining  the  above  observations,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  fifth  MRV  reporting  year 
confirms  the  consistency  of  reported  data,  and  therefore  the  increasing  robustness  of  the 
monitoring, reporting and verification framework for maritime transport.  

4.1. Technical efficiency 

4.1.1.  Overview 

According to the EU Maritime MRV Regulation, ships have to report their technical efficiency. 
This can be done through two indicators, which are mutually exclusive and apply depending 
on the year of build of the ship:  the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) or the Estimated 
Index Value (EIV). A third possibility is also available as an exemption: to report the entry ‘not 
applicable’, but that is foreseen only for a minority of ship types (see below for details).  

The  EEDI  is  an  energy  efficiency  measure  implemented  at  the  IMO  level  with  the  aim  to 
improve the technical energy efficiency of newbuild ships. Newbuild ships built after 1 January 
2013  or  1  January  2015 26  need  to  meet  EEDI  requirements  in  terms  of  CO2  per  capacity 
nautical  mile  (CO2/t*nm).  The  EEDI  requirements  become  more  stringent  over  time,  also 
depending  on  ship  type  and  size  (see  Table  8  in  the  Annex  for  an  overview  of  the  EEDI 
requirements). 

The EIV is a simplified version of the EEDI, used to calculate the energy efficiency reference 
lines for ships pre-dating the application of the EEDI. 

Specific EU MRV reporting requirements regarding the technical carbon efficiency of ships are 
as follows (European Commission, 2017): 

26 Depending on the ship type and size.   

31 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

•  The  attained  EEDI  has  to  be  reported  where  required  by  and  in  accordance  with 

MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations 19 and 20.27 (European Commission, 2017). 

•  Ships that do not fall under these MARPOL Annex VI Regulations (for example due to 
the year of build or the ship size), but that are ship types that in principle are covered 
by  these  MARPOL  Annex  VI  Regulations,  have  to  report  the  EIV.  They  are  also 
encouraged to report the EEDI instead of the EIV on a voluntary basis. 

•  Ships of ship types not covered by the MARPOL Annex VI Regulations are not required 
to report their technical efficiency (European Commission, 2017), which explains why 
for some ships the ‘not applicable’ value was entered in the technical efficiency section. 

In 2022, a total of 4 232 ships reported their EEDI while 8 423 ships reported their EIV (with 
an additional 300 ‘not applicable’ reports). The majority of reporting vessels report their EIV, 
however their share of total reports has been steadily decreasing since 2019 (from 74% to 
65% in 2022), while the share of ships reporting their EEDI has increased (from 23% in 2019 
to 33% in 2022). This is a direct consequence of fleet renewal under the scope of the MRV, 
as  new  ships  with  higher  EEDI  standards  progressively  replace  older  vessels  which  were 
required to report EIV (see Table 9 in Annex 4).   

In 2022, for 8 of the 15 ship types, more than a third of the ships within their ship type reported 
their EEDI; these ships are combination carriers (56%) and gas carriers (48%), followed by oil 
tankers  (43%),  chemical  tankers  (41%),  LNG  carriers  (38%),  bulk  carriers  (37%),  and 
container ship (32%). 

This reflects the fact that the fleet is composed of a relatively high number of young ships, built 
in 201328 or later, and also the fact that for most of these ship types, the EEDI requirements 
came into force at an earlier stage, i.e. 2013 instead of 2015. 

The average EEDI values reported in 2022 per ship type highlight that oil tankers, combination 
carriers,  and  bulk  carriers  reported  the  lowest  average  EEDI  values,  while  ro-pax  ships, 
refrigerated cargo carriers and vehicle carriers the highest ones. This is in line with what was 
reported in 2021.  

In  2022,  the  fleet  average  EEDI  reached  its  lowest  level  so far  –  an  improvement  of  7.7% 
compared to 2019 and of 5.6% compared to 2021. This however does not necessarily mean 
that individual ships’ technical efficiency has improved as the value represents an average at 
fleet level and the composition of the fleet differs between the different years. 

In terms of average EEDI per ship type in 2022, 8 out of 15 ship types reported their lowest 
level recorded so far, however, only for general cargo ships the average 2022 EEDI level was 
significantly lower than the lowest annual average EEDI recorded in the period 2018 to 2022. 
Comparing the average 2018 to 2022 EEDI per ship type, with the average 2022 EEDI per 
ship type, not only general cargo carriers stand out, but also Ro-pax ships, Ro-ro cargo ships, 
and refrigerated cargo carriers which all show an improvement of more than 5%. 

4.1.2.  Evolution of the Technical Efficiency of the monitored fleet 

The technical efficiency (EEDI or EIV) of the monitored fleet was further analysed by means 
of a graphical analysis, by plotting EEDI and EIV values against a ship’s capacity (DWT or 
Gross Tonnage). Regression curves with R2-values have then been calculated. Similarly to 
previous  years,  technical  efficiency  trends  did  not  significantly  change,  as  shown  by  the 
different reporting periods’ regression curves shown in Annex 4. These overlap for the most 

27  Regulation  19  (Application)  and Regulation  20  (Attained  EEDI)  are  part  of  Chapter  4  (Regulations on  energy  efficiency  for 
ships) of Annex VI of the IMO MARPOL Convention. 

28 The first newbuild ships to which Phase 0 applied where ships with a building contract placed on or after 1 January 2013 / ships 
the delivery of which was on or after 1 July 2015 

32 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

representative  ship  types  in  the  monitored  fleet,  for  which  a  high  correlation  between  the 
EEDI/EIV and the carrying capacity was recorded. In addition, an improvement in correlation 
values is visible for the overall period 2018-2022, across different ship types. Such findings 
result  from  the  current  technogical  and  commercial  status  quo  of  the  maritime  trade,  and 
confirm the quality and consistency of the data reported under the EU MRV system.  

As  a  representative  example,  the  graph  below  shows  the  EIV’s  graphical  analysis  for  bulk 
carriers. Robust R2 correlation values were calculated (above 0.6) for a total of 11 ship types, 
representing 82% of total emissions reported in 2022. 14 graphs produced for this analysis, 
showing the most significant values, are presented in Annex 4.  

Figure 21: Plot of attained EIV values for bulk carriers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

4.2. Operational efficiency 

4.2.1.  Overview: EEOI and AER 

According  to  the  EU  Maritime  MRV  Regulation  ,  ships  have  to  monitor  their  average 
operational energy efficiency by using at least four indicators: 

1.  Fuel consumption per distance; 

2.  Fuel consumption per transport work 29; 

3.  CO2 emissions per distance; 

4.  CO2 emissions per transport work (also referred to as Energy Efficiency Operational 

Indicator (EEOI)). 

which are calculated as follows: 

29 Transport work expresses the product of distance travelled per the amount of cargo carried over the period. For an overview 
of the metrics applied under the EU MRV to the different ship types, see Table 10 in Annex 4.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

1.  Fuel consumption per distance =  

Total annual fuel consumption
Total distance travelled

2.  Fuel consumption per transport work =  

Total annual fuel consumption
Total transport work

3.  CO2 emissions per distance =  

Total annual CO2 emissions
Total distance travelled

4.  CO2 emissions per transport work =  

Total annual CO2 emissions
Total transport work

The  metric  for  the  transport  work  can  thereby  differ,  depending  on  the  ship  type  (see 
Implementing Regulation 2016/1927), e.g. depending on whether cargo or passengers or both 
are transported. The majority of the ships (have to) apply a metric which uses the mass of the 
cargo transported, measuring their transport work in tonne nautical miles. (see Table 10 in the 
Annex for more details about the indicators reported per ship type).  

The Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) is defined, in its most simple form, as the 
ratio of mass of CO2 emitted per unit of transport work. As it varies according to the actual 
cargo carried, this indicator reflects the carbon intensity of the transport service rendered by 
each individual ship. Thus, it is highly influenced by the actual loading of vessels (including 
ballast  voyages).  Keeping  everything  else  equal,  ships  with  higher  payload  utilisation  will 
therefore tend to have a lower EEOI, which makes them appear more energy efficient. 

The principal challenge with regards to the operational efficiency of ships lies in the fact that 
there are various factors that have an impact on the operational efficiency of a ship. Some of 
these factors, such as the speed of a ship, can be determined by the operator, while others, 
like voyage conditions (wind, waves etc.), cannot. Analysing operational efficiency at ship type 
level and on an annual basis allows to average out factors such as voyage conditions and for 
ships, like liner ships or ferries, which operate on the same/comparable routes in the different 
years,  a change of the ships’  operational  efficiency between the years will  likely  be  mainly 
linked to a change in the operation of the ship, like a speed reduction.  

Based on the data reported by the companies, an additional operational efficiency indicator, 
the AER (Annual Efficiency Ratio) can be determined. This indicator works with a proxy for 
the ships’ transport work, i.e. the deadweight tonnage, resulting in the following metric: g CO₂/ 
(dwt*nautical  miles).  Comparing  the  different  indicators,  the  AER  features  comparably  less 
variation,  since  the  proxy  for  the  ships’  transport  work,  i.e.  the  deadweight  tonnage,  is 
constant.  

4.2.2.  Evolution of the operational efficiency of the monitored fleet 

The evolution of the operational efficiency of the fleet was analysed by means of a graphical 
analysis, applied to both EEOI and AER indicators. To this end, the AER and EEOI per ship 
type have been plotted against the cargo carrying capacity (in DWT, GT or both). Regression 
curves with R2-values have then been calculated.  

The analysis highlights that, also in 2022, the operational efficiency trends did not significantly 
change, as shown by the different reporting periods’ regression curves overlap, resulting from 
the currently established technological and commercial status-quo of the maritime trade.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

As  a  representative  example,  the  graph  below  shows  the  EEOI  graphical  analysis  for  gas 
carriers. 21 graphs have shown robust R2 correlation values (above 0.6) for a total of 11 ship 
types, representing 79% of total reported emissions in 2022. The most significant ones are 
grouped in Annex 4. 

Figure 22: Plot of attained EEOI values of gas carriers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

5. Assessing the implementation of the EU Maritime 

MRV Regulation 

5.1. Key indicators on the MRV process in 2022 

5.1.1.  Punctuality 

According to article 11 of the EU Maritime MRV Regulation, by 30 April in the year after the 
reporting  period,  shipping  companies  have  to  submit  their  verified  emissions  report  to  the 
Commission and the flag State. The share of all emissions reports that have been submitted 
to the European Commission (including resubmitted reports that required a revision) before 
May has improved remarkably over the first four reporting period, increasing from 54.7% in 
2018 to 67.3% in 2021. The year 2022, however, recorded a worsening of this indicator, down 
to 55.8%.  

A timely submission of the verified emissions report to the Commission highly depends on a 
timely verification by the verifiers, which is possible once companies finalise transmission of 
the emissions report to their verifier. The share of the emissions reports that have been verified 
as satisfactory by 30 April, while increasing in the years 2020 and 2021 (reaching a peak of 
75.7%), decreased in 2022, for which only 64.9% of total emissions report were verified as 
satisfactory by the verifier.   

The data over the period 2018-2022 confirms that the submission of a large amount of verified 
emissions reports is finalised after April, so that companies can obtain a valid document of 
compliance by 30 June, deadline of expiration of the one from the previous compliance cycle. 
The share of emissions reports submitted by this latter date reached its peak (92%) in 2022.   

5.1.2. Non-compliant emission reports and revisions 

With the exception of the first reporting year, for which 149 cases were recorded, the number 
of initially non-compliant emission reports, a transitory status at the moment of transmission, 
remains extremely low: only 5 cases were recorded in 2022, similar levels to those recorded 
in the period 2019-2021. The share of emissions reports that have been verified as satisfactory 
without  any  additional  revision  has  continuously  increased  year  after  year  over  the  period, 
from 34% in 2018 to 76% in 2022.  

5.2. Quality and completeness of EU MRV data 

5.2.1.  Outliers 

Some of the verified emissions reports include a few outliers, i.e. relatively easily identifiable, 
obvious mistakes.30 However, the number of emissions reports with outliers has continuously 
decreased  over the years, down to 91 reports in 2022 compared to 354 reports in the 2018 
reporting period. In the reporting year 2022, only 0.7% of all emissions reports contained one 
or more outliers. Also the impact of these misstatements on the total fleet CO2 emissions has 
been decreasing over the period 2018-2022, recording its lowest level in 2022 (the emissions 
reports containing outliers represent 0.9% of all emissions).  

30 Across the whole present report, in view of ensuring the accuracy of data, clear outliers identified during the analytical process 
have been discarded, as in previous years. 

36 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

5.2.2. Verifiers 

The majority of active verifiers verifed emissions reports with fewer or the same number of 
outliers  compared  to  2021.  Only  5  out  of  19  active  verifiers  31  verified  emissions  reports 
containing more outliers than in 2021. The number of emissions reports that contain outliers 
is  not  evenly  distributed  over  the  different  verifiers.  For  the  2022  reporting  period,  three 
verifiers  stand  out  with  between  11  to  20  emissions  reports  featuring  outliers,  which 
corresponds to a share of between 0.6% and 4.2% of the respective verified reports.  

With  the  aim  of  continuous  improvement  in  the  implementation  of  the  EU  maritime  MRV 
Regulation,  the  Commission  holds  periodic  meetings  over  the  year  with  the  relevant 
stakeholders,  namely  verifiers  and  National  Accreditation  Bodies,  to  further  improve  the 
punctuality, quality, and completeness of the reported data.  

31 This notably excludes a twentieth verifier which was active in the system for the first time during reporting period 2022.    

37 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

References 

DNV,  2023.  Energy  Transition  Outlook 2023,  Maritime  Forecast  to 2050.  Hamburg: 

DNV AS. 

European  Commission,  2017.  Guidance  on  EIV  -  arrangements 

[Online] 

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/system/files/2017- 
06/20170517_guidance_eiv_arrangements_en.pd 

Eurostat, 2023. Gross weight of goods handled in main ports by direction and type of 

cargo - quarterly data [mar_go_qmc]. 

General Secretariat of  the Council,  2023.  Infographic  -  Where  does  the  EU’s  gas 
Infographics: 
Retrieved 

come 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-gas-supply/ 

from? 

from 

IGU, 2022. 2022 World LNG Report. London: International Gas Union (IGU). 

IGU, 2023. 2023 World LNG Report. London: International Gas Union (IGU). 

OECD, 2022. OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2022. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD, 2023. ITF Transport Outlook 2023. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

UNCTAD,  2023.  Review  of  Maritime  Transport  2023.  Geneva:  United  Nations 

Publication. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Annex 1 Abbreviations and definitions 

Table 3 Abbreviations and definitions 

Abbreviation 

Meaning 

AER 

AFIR 

BDN 

CII 

DCS 

DoC 

dwt 

EC 

EEA 

EEDI 

EEOI 

EEXI 

EIV 

Annual Efficiency Ratio 

Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation 

Bunker Delivery Note 

Carbon Intensity Indicator 

Data Collection System 

Document of Compliance 

Deadweight tonnage 

European Commission 

European Economic Area (EU-27 + Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein) 

Energy Efficiency Design Indicator 

Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator 

Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index  

Estimated Index Value 

EMSA 

European Maritime Safety Agency 

ETD 

ER 

EU 

GHG 

GT 

HFO 

IGU 

IMO 

Energy Taxation Directive 

Emissions Report 

European Union 

Greenhouse Gas  

Gross tonnage 

Heavy Fuel Oil 

International Gas Union  

International Maritime Organization 

39 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas 

Long Range Identification and Tracking 

LNG 

LPG 

LRIT 

MARINFO 

EMSA’s internal database fed by information bought from commercial 
providers 

MARPOL 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

MEPC 

Marine Environmental Protection Committee 

m/m 

MP 

MRV 

MS 

NAB 

Mass per mass 

Monitoring Plan 

Monitoring, Reporting, Verification 

Member State 

National Accreditation Body 

n miles 

Nautical miles 

Pax 

PSC 

RED 

Passenger 

Port State Control 

Renewable Energy Directive 

Ro-ro ship 

Roll-on/roll -off ship 

Ro-pax ship 

SEEMP 

TEN-T 

THETIS-MRV 

Roll-on/roll-off passenger ship 
(vessel built for freight vehicle transport along with passenger 
accommodation) 

Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan 

Trans-European Transport Network 

EMSA web-based application established for the implementation of the 
EU Maritime MRV Regulation (e.g. to be used by companies to generate 
emissions reports). 

UNCTAD 

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development  

VLSFO 

Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil 

40 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Annex 2 Outcomes of the fourth compliance cycle 

A.2.1 Fuel/emissions monitoring methods 

Under the EU MRV Regulation, companies can apply four different fuel/emission monitoring 
methods: Bunker Fuel Delivery Note (BDN) and period stock takes of fuel tanks (Method A), 
bunker  fuel  tank  monitoring  on-board  (Method  B),  flow  meters  for  applicable  combustion 
processes (Method C) and direct CO2 emissions measuring (Method D).  

The  vast  majority  of  reporting  ships  applied  only  one  of  the  monitoring  methods  (86.5%  in 
2022) while a smaller share of ships applied two of the methods (12.7% in 2022). Only 0.8% 
of  reporting  ships  in  2022  applied  three  monitoring  methods.  In  the  2022  reporting  period, 
Method D was not applied by any reporting ships. 

The data for the five reporting years shows hardly any variation in the share of ships that apply 
methods C and D. In contrast, the share of ships applying method A increased over time, while 
the share of ships applying method B decreased.  

Table 4 Fuel monitoring methods 

Share of ships that have applied a method; 2018 to 2022 

Method A 

Method B 

Method C 

Method D 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

47.0% 

49.8% 

49.2% 

50.4% 

52.2% 

35.0% 

32.9% 

32.7% 

31.2% 

29.7% 

34.9% 

32.8% 

33.2% 

32.5% 

32.4% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

A.2.2 Shipping companies 

1  759  shipping  companies  have  submitted  emission  reports  for  the  reporting  period  2022: 
3.5% more companies than for the reporting period 2021 and 6.7% more companies than for 
the reporting period 2019.  

As  the  following  figure  illustrates,  51.9%  of  companies  in  the  2022  reporting  period  were 
registered in an EU country, 45.7% in a non-EEA country and 2.4% in an EEA-non-EU country. 
These shares are almost the same as in 2021 and slightly deviate from the shares in the period 
2018 to 2020, before the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.  

41 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 23: Number of companies and distribution over region of registration; 2018 to 2022 

A.2.3 Verifiers and National Accreditation Bodies 

In  the  reporting  period  2022,  19  different  accredited  verifiers  were  called  in  for  verification 
activities  required  for  the  shipping  companies’  compliance  with  the  EU  Maritime  MRV 
Regulation. The five largest of the verifiers covered around 65% of the emissions reports that 
were submitted in 2022. Eight different national accreditation bodies (NABs) have accredited 
the 19 verifiers active in the 2022 reporting period. Three of these NABs have accredited more 
than one verifier.  

4 of the 19 verifiers are not located in an EEA country (see Table 6) and the highest number 
of verifiers is located in Greece (6 out of the 19). 

Table 5 Number of verifiers accredited per National Accreditation Body 

Number of verifiers* accredited per National Accreditation Body in 2018 to 2022 

National Accreditation Body 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021  2022 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ACCREDIA – IT 

COFRAC - FR 

Croatian Accreditation Agency – HR 

German Accreditation Body (DAkkS) – DE 

The Danish Accreditation Fund (DANAK) – DK 

Dutch Accreditation Council (RvA) - NL 

1 

3 

1 

5 

0 

1 

42 

1 

2 

1 

5 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

5 

0 

1 

1 

3 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

2 

0 

5 

0 

1 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Hellenic Accreditation System (ESYD) – EL 

Polish Centre for Accreditation (PCA) – PL 

Portuguese Institute for Accreditation (IPAC) – 
PT 

Swedish Board for Accreditation and 
Conformity Assessment (Swedac) - SE 

The United Kingdom Accreditation Service 
(UKAS) - UK 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

*Verifiers with the same accreditation number are considered as one verifier. 

Total 

24 

21 

19 

21 

19 

Table 6 Number of verifiers 

Number of verifiers per country in 2018 to 2022 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Country 

Croatia 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Italy 

Poland 

Portugal 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

China 

India 

Japan 

Republic of Korea 

Russian Federation 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021  2022 

1 

2 

3 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

2 

3 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

2 

3 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

2 

3 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

2 

3 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

Total 

24 

21 

19 

20 

19 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

A.2.4 Port State Control inspections 

According  to Article 19(2)  of the  EU  MRV  Regulation (2015/757)  each Member  State shall 
ensure that any inspection of a ship in a port under its jurisdiction carried out following Directive 
2009/16/EC includes checking that a valid MRV Document of Compliance (DoC) is carried on 
board. Figure 24 and Figure 25 provide an overview of the number and the outcome of the 
inspections  of  the  MRV  DoC  during  Port  State  Control  (PSC)  inspections  in  EEA  Member 
States for the period 2019-2023 32, which refers to the five compliance years associated to the 
reporting years 2018-2022. 

Figure 24: Total number and outcome of MRV DoC inspection as part of PSC inspection over the period 2019-2023 

During the compliance checks carried out the first five reporting years, up to November 2023, 
41 037 ships were inspected to confirm the presence of valid MRV DoC on board the ship. 
70% of these ships were able to present a valid DoC, while 23% of the ships were not required 
to carry a valid MRV DoC onboard. Over the five compliance cycle only 3% of the inspected 
ships could not produce a valid DoC, a share which has considerably decreased after the first 
two  compliance  years,  during  which  much  higher  values  were  registered  (of  7%  and  4% 
respectively).33  

32 The date includes the dataset available at the time of writing, thus referring to inspections carried out from January 2019 to 
early November 2023.   

33 The value ‘not reported’ refers to cases where the PSC inspector did not declare the outcome of the inspection with respect to 
the MRV DoC. Those accounted for 5% of inspected ships over the period.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 25: Number and outcome of MRV DoC inspections by country, cumulative during the period 2019 - 2023 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Annex 3 Main extra-EU flows 

Table 7 provides the top 15 extra EU-27 flows by gross weight handled in main ports over the 
years 2018 to 2022, in millions of tonnes. Eleven of the flows are inward flows, while four are 
outward flows.  

The total 2022 volume of inward flows increased by 2.4% in 2022 and is nearly the same as 
in  2019  (0.4%  higher  than  in  2019).  The  fifteen  countries  related  to  these  flows  remained 
stable over the last five years, though their position in terms of the annual volume of the flow 
varies  over  time.  Compared  to  2021,  inflows  from  the  United  States  (East  Coast),  Egypt, 
China, Norway, the UK, Canada (East Coast), and Brazil increased in 2022, while inflows from 
Russia  (Black  Sea,  Baltic  Sea),  Türkiye,  and  Nigeria  decreased.  As  a  consequence,  the 
inflows  from  the  United  States  (East  Coast)  and  the  UK  surpassed  the  inflow  from  Russia 
(Black Sea). 

Table 7 Top 15 extra EU-27 flows by gross weight handled in main ports 

Inward and outward flows from/to EU-27 ports (million tonnes) 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

Inward flows to EU ports from non-EU ports 

United States (East 
Coast) 

91.3 

106.5 

100.0 

106.0 

146.9 

United Kingdom 

105.0 

Russia (Baltic Sea) 

Türkiye 

Norway 

Brazil 

China 

Russia (Black Sea) 

Egypt 

Nigeria 

129 

73.2 

86.0 

86.5 

61.6 

78.6 

50.0 

35.0 

Canada (East Coast) 

34.4 

104.8 

131.5 

82.2 

90.0 

76.2 

65.9 

81.3 

54.2 

46.2 

34.8 

Outward flows from EU ports to non-EU ports 

United Kingdom 

114.0 

108.3 

United States (East 
Coast) 

52.6 

53.3 

105.7 

120.7 

81.3 

80.8 

68.2 

62.4 

83.2 

47.5 

39.2 

32.6 

99.8 

47.3 

101.1 

137.4 

92.2 

81.8 

74.6 

72.1 

79.4 

44.4 

34.4 

33.5 

106.6 

91.0 

90.8 

89.7 

76.3 

79.1 

73.4 

55.9 

32.7 

34.8 

120.8 

113.1 

57.1 

54.4 

China 

42.0 

51.2 

61.4 

53.7 

41.2 

46 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Türkiye 

46.1 

48.0 

49.0 

49.2 

46.1 

Source: Eurostat (2023) 

47 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Annex 4 Technical and operational efficiency of the 

monitored fleet 

A.4.1 Technical efficiency (related to Section 4.1.1.) 

Table  8  gives  an  overview  of  the  EEDI  requirements  (=percentage  reduction  factor  to  be 
applied to reference value) that hold for the different ship types as specified in the first column, 
differentiated by ship size and Phase. To give an example: In 2013 and 2014 (i.e. in Phase 0) 
new bulk carriers of 20 000 dwt and above had to attain an EEDI value that was equal to the 
reference value (i.e. a reduction factor of zero applied), while in 2015 to 2019 (i.e. in Phase 1) 
new bulk carriers of 20 000 dwt and above had to attain an EEDI value that was 10% below 
the reference value (i.e. a reduction factor of ten applied). 

Table 8 EEDI requirements depending on ship type and size and phase as published 
in Resolution MEPC.324(75) 

48 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

49 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 9 gives an overview of the number of ships that, per ship type, have reported, the EEDI, 
the EIV or ‘not applicable’ as technical efficiency indicator. 

Table 9 Number of ships which reported their EEDI, EIV or ‘not applicable’ in 2022 

Technical efficiency indicators reported per ship type 

Ship type 

# of ships which 
reported their EEDI 
in 2022 

# of ships which 
reported their EIV 
in 2022 

# of ships that 
reported ‘Not 
applicable’ in 
2022 

Bulk carrier 

1 478 

Chemical tanker 

Combination carrier 

Container ship 

Container/Ro-ro cargo 
ship 

Gas carrier 

General cargo ship 

LNG carrier 

Oil tanker 

Other ship types 

Passenger ship 

Refrigerated cargo carrier 

Ro-pax ship 

Ro-ro ship 

Vehicle carrier 

591 

5 

588 

8 

170 

175 

147 

850 

6 

63 

19 

22 

38 

72 

2 516 

810 

4 

1 224 

52 

178 

1004 

237 

1 117 

131 

98 

115 

358 

188 

391 

55 

24 

0 

22 

0 

5 

8 

5 

20 

108 

25 

1 

26 

0 

1 

Total 

4 232 

8 423 

300 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evolution of the Technical Efficiency of the monitored fleet – graphical analysis  

The figures below plot the Estimated Index Value (EIV) and Energy Efficiency Design Index 
(EEDI) values for twelve ship groups in the five reporting years (2018 to 2022) against the size 
of the relevant ships measured in deadweight tonnage (see dots with a different colour per 
year).  As  in  previous  annual  reports,  only  graphs  with  robust  R2-indicator  (>0.6)  for  the 
correlation between EEDI/EIV and the respective cargo carrying capacity have been included 
in this report.  

The EIV/EEDI trendlines for 2018 to 2022 for the following ship types clearly overlap, which 
indicates that the technical efficiency of these subsegments of the fleet has not significantly 
changed. The ship types included in this graphical analysis cover eleven out of the fifteen ship 
unique types reporting under the EU MRV system, representing, in emissions terms, 82% of 
total reported emissions in 2022.  

The correlation values are generally increasing over the years, with all ship types showing a  
higher correlation value in 2022 than in 2018.  

The ship types for which the sample is too small (below 25 occurrences) or the regression line 
not reliable enough  to  draw  conclusions (e.g.  due to  high  variability/scatter)  have not  been 
shown. 

Figure 26: Plot of attained EIV values of bulk carriers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 27: Plot of attained EIV values of oil tankers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 28: Plot of attained EIV values of chemical tankers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 29: Plot of attained EIV values of container ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

52 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 31: Plot of attained EIV values of gas carrier ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 32: Plot of attained EEDI values of bulk carriers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 33: Plot of attained EEDI values of oil tankers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

53 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 34: Plot of attained EEDI values of chemical tankers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 35: Plot of attained EEDI values of LNG carriers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 36: Plot of attained EEDI values of gas carriers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

54 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 37: Plot of attained EEDI values of passenger ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 38: Plot of attained EEDI values of container ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 39: Plot of attained EEDI values of general cargo ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

A.4.2 Operational efficiency (related to Section 4.2.) 

Operational efficiency indicators 

The  majority  of  the  ships  (have  to)  apply  a  metric  which  uses  the  mass  of  the  cargo 
transported, measuring their transport work in tonne nautical miles. In contrast, container/Ro-
ro  cargo  ships  and  LNG  carriers  apply  a  metric  which  uses  the  volume  of  the  cargo 
transported, measuring their  transport  work  in cubic  metre nautical miles.  Passenger  ships 
naturally determine their transport work in terms of passenger nautical miles. Ro-pax ships, 
which  transport  cargo  and  passengers,  report  two  indicators,  one  in  terms  of  passenger 
nautical miles and the other in terms of tonne nautical miles for the freight transported. Three 
categories of ship types (general cargo ships, vehicle carriers, other ship types ) can, instead 
of  mass  of  the  cargo  transported,  alternatively  determine  their  transport  work  by means  of 
‘deadweight carried’34.  

Table 10 gives an overview of the different operational efficiency indicators and metrics that 
were  reported  in  2022.  The  table  hereunder  only  shows  the  CO2  efficiency  indicators.  The 
corresponding energy efficiency indicators are not presented in the table, but the same metrics 
hold (kg fuel/n miles instead of kg CO₂ / n mile etc.) and have been reported by the same ship 
types. 

Table 10 Operational efficiency indicators 

Indicators reported by ship type 

Operational efficiency 
indicator 

Annual average CO₂ emissions 
per distance 

Annual average CO₂ emissions 
per transport work (mass distance)  

Indicator Units 

Indicator reported by… 

[kg CO₂ / n mile] 

All ship types 

[g CO₂ / (m tonnes · n miles)] 

All ship types except  

•  Container/Ro-ro cargo 

ship,  
• 
LNG carrier,  
•  Passenger ships,  
•  Ro-pax ships 

Annual average CO₂ emissions 
per transport work (volume)  

[g CO₂ / (m³ · n miles)] 

Container/Ro-ro cargo ship 
LNG carrier 

Annual average CO₂ emissions 
per transport work (dwt carried)  

[g CO₂ / (dwt carried · n miles)] 

Mainly General cargo ships and 
Other ship types; very few ships 
of other types. 

Annual average CO₂ emissions 
per transport work (pax) 

[g CO₂ / (pax · n miles)] 

Passenger ships 
Ro-pax ships 

Annual average CO₂ emissions 
per transport work (freight)  

[g CO₂ / (m tonnes · n miles)] 

Ro-pax ships 

34 According to Implementing Regulation 2016/1928, deadweight carried (in metric tonnes) is the volume displacement multiplied 
with the water density, with the mass of fuel and lightweight subtracted. 

56 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evolution of operational efficiency – a graphical analysis 

The figures below plot values for the Energy Efficency Operational Indicator (EEOI) and the 
Annual Efficiency Ratio (AER) for eleven ship types in the five reporting years (2018 to 2022), 
against  the  size  of the relevant  ships - measured  in deadweight tonnage or  gross  tonnage 
(see dots with a different colour per year).  

As in previous annual reports, only graphs with a robust R2-indicator (>0.6) for the correlation 
between  EEOI/AER  and  the  respective  cargo  carrying  capacity  have  been  included  in  this 
report.  

The EEOI/AER trendlines for 2018 to 2022 for most ship types clearly overlap, which indicates 
that the operational efficiency of these subsegments of the fleet has not significantly changed. 
The ship types included in this graphical analysis cover eleven out of the fifteen unique ship 
types reporting under the EU MRV system, representing  74% of total reported emissions in 
2022.  

The correlation values are generally increasing over the years, with all ship types showing a  
higher correlation value in 2022 than in 2018 (with the exception of chemical tankers for which 
the correlation value is the same). 

The ship types for which the sample is too small (<25 occurrences), or the regression line is 
not reliable enough to draw conclusions (e.g. due to high variability/scatter), have not been 
shown 35. 

Figure 40: Plot of attained EEOI values of gas carriers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

35  For  passenger  ships  (cruise  liners)  and  ro-pax  vessels  no  EEOI/AER  regression  curve  is  presented  since  the  long-lasting 
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic impacting the period 2020-2022 resulted in higher and more fluctuant EEOI and AER values 
for these types of vessels, limiting therefore the interest of applying a regression analysis.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 41: Plot of attained EEOI values of container ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 42: Plot of attained AER values of ro-ro ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 43: Plot of attained AER values of general cargo ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

58 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 44: Plot of attained AER values of oil tankers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 45: Plot of attained AER values of chemical tankers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 46: Plot of attained AER values of LNG carriers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

59 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 47: Plot of attained AER values of gas carriers over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 48: Plot of attained AER values of container/ro-ro cargo ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 49: Plot of attained AER values of container ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

60 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 50: Plot of attained AER values of combination carrier ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 51: Plot of attained AER values of vehicle carrier ships over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

Figure 52: Plot of attained AER values of other ship types over the five reporting years and associated trendlines 

61