Executive Summary:

The HKUST Shipping Decarbonisation Forum, held on 20 May 2026 at the HKUST Jockey Club Institute for Advanced Study, examined how the maritime sector can act during the "messy middle" of decarbonisation. With the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Net-Zero Framework delayed in October 2025, speakers focused on two near-term pathways: deploying energy efficiency technologies (EETs) on existing ships and strengthening carbon certification for marine biofuels and other low-carbon fuels.

The forum found that technology availability is not the fundamental bottleneck. EETs such as propulsion upgrades, shaft generators, wind-assisted propulsion systems, performance analytics, and pay-as-you-save models are already being tested or deployed; biofuels are also available as drop-in options for existing vessels. However, three barriers remain decisive. First, EET adoption depends on vessel-specific operating profiles, verified savings, crew training, and commercial arrangements that address split incentives between shipowners and charterers. Second, biofuel use requires credible lifecycle accounting, feedstock verification, quality and quantity assurance, and safeguards against weak certification or fraud. Third, Hong Kong's role depends on coordination: aligning with IMO expectations and existing international schemes rather than creating fragmented local requirements.

Participants identified four priorities:

1. Build trusted measurement and verification systems for EET savings, including baselines, performance analytics, and independent validation.
2. Align retrofit incentives among shipowners, charterers, technology providers, and financiers so that verified fuel savings can support investment decisions.
3. Strengthen biofuel carbon integrity through IMO lifecycle assessment, recognised certification schemes, physical assurance, fingerprinting, and fuel testing.
4. Position Hong Kong as a certification, verification, professional-services, and green fuel trading platform connected to Greater Bay Area supply chains.

The conclusion was clear: ships can be retrofitted and fuels can be certified, but adoption will scale only when performance, carbon intensity, and commercial benefits are measured, verified, and trusted.

Technical Summary:

Part I: Maritime Energy Efficiency Technologies

Opening Context

Prof. Christine Loh opened the forum by positioning shipping and port development within both China's forthcoming 15th Five-Year Plan and Hong Kong's first five-year plan. She emphasised that HKUST's role is to work close to industry while contributing public-policy analysis, research, and stakeholder engagement. The forum was designed to bring technical, commercial, financial, and policy perspectives into the same room so that Hong Kong's future maritime policy can be informed by the realities of decarbonisation.

Ms. Sabrina Chao widened the discussion beyond technology. She linked decarbonisation to geopolitical disruption, energy security, seafarer welfare, and the uncertainty facing shipowners who must invest in assets with lives of 20 to 25 years. Her remarks underlined the need for regulatory clarity, a level playing field, and robust lifecycle greenhouse gas assessment. She also argued that EETs, digitalisation, and credible fuel certification are the tools available now while alternative fuels and global regulation mature.

Mr. Tim Smith recalled the Fair Winds Charter as an example of Hong Kong's ability to convene stakeholders and translate voluntary action into policy. He argued that the same spirit could support Hong Kong's future role in green fuel trading. With Mainland China emerging as a major supplier of green methanol, green ammonia, batteries, and related technologies, Hong Kong could help connect supply, finance, regulation, and demand for the regional maritime sector.

Keynote Presentations

The EET sessions began with HKUST's research update on green maritime retrofitting and marine fuel demand and emissions analysis. Mr. Jiajing Chen described how automatic identification system (AIS) data and maritime big-data analytics can support emissions estimation, policy evaluation, and identification of high-priority areas such as hotelling emissions in Hong Kong waters. The presentation linked research on onshore power, green retrofitting, and possible intra-Greater Bay Area corridors to a broader need for trusted data and lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis.

Mr. Patrick Banks of Kongsberg Maritime reviewed integrated energy-saving technologies from the perspective of a technology provider. His main message was that EETs cannot be treated as isolated devices. Propellers, rudders, wind-assisted propulsion, shaft generators, batteries, hotel loads, voyage planning, and estimated arrival requirements interact with one another. Wind-assisted propulsion systems, in particular, must be selected according to vessel type, route, geography, and operating profile. Installing a device without integrating it into vessel operations may fail to deliver the promised savings.

Mr. Shane Balani of the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) addressed the financing and incentive problem through the Fund for Energy Efficiency Technologies (FEET). He explained that EET savings are real but difficult to predict because they depend on routes, weather, vessel use, operational behaviour, and crew practices. FEET seeks to reduce this uncertainty through high-frequency data, performance measurement, statistical analysis, blended finance, and a pay-as-you-save leasing model. The structure is designed to help shipowners access technologies without bearing all upfront cost, while giving financiers a stronger basis for understanding performance risk.

Mr. Logan Lau of China Merchants Marine and Offshore Research Institute (CMMI) introduced the Vessel Technical Index (VTI) as an open and dynamic performance-proof platform. Developed with shipowner, integrator, and verifier participation, VTI aims to quantify ship-level and equipment-level efficiency while accounting for environmental conditions such as wind, waves, and water. The platform connects technical measurement with commercial questions, including cleaning decisions, dynamic fuel tables, weather routing, and possible risk-reward sharing between owners and charterers.

Panel 1: Issues of wind-assisted propulsion systems (WAPS) and overcoming barriers of EETs adoption

The first panel was moderated by Ms. Christine Loh (HKUST). The panellists were Mr. Daniel Song (Bureau Veritas), Ms. Eleanor Cunningham (Caravel Group), Mr. Patrick Banks (Kongsberg Maritime), Mr. Shane Balani (GCMD), and Mr. Logan Lau (CMMI). The discussion focused on why technologies with measurable fuel-saving potential still face slow adoption on existing ships.

Retrofit readiness and vessel-specific integration

• Mr. Daniel Song (Bureau Veritas) stressed that retrofitting existing ships is far more complex than integrating EETs into newbuilds. While shipyard cutting, construction, and commissioning may take only weeks, the design, feasibility, and capability assessment can take five to six months. Using wind propulsion as an example, he noted that poor integration can create practical operational problems, such as interference with mooring arrangements and berth access. Retrofit assessment must begin early and examine all likely operational impacts before installation.
• Ms. Eleanor Cunningham (Caravel Group) emphasised the ship manager's perspective. She argued that EETs must fit the vessel, not the other way around. A credible pre-retrofit baseline, weather-normalised fuel-consumption data, and a clear understanding of how each technology interacts with the ship are essential before savings can be quantified and shared with owners or charterers.
• Mr. Patrick Banks (Kongsberg Maritime) reinforced the integration point from the technology-provider side. He said providers can support analysis and verification, but capital expenditure remains hard for shipowners to justify even where the business case appears strong. He noted that interest in fuel-saving technologies is high, but follow-through is often weak because the upfront cost, the split between capital expenditure and operating savings, and the absence of a clear commercial pull all affect investment decisions.

Crew training, data, and operational delivery

• Ms. Eleanor Cunningham (Caravel Group) stressed that technology performance depends on people as much as equipment. Crews, superintendents, vendors, owners, and charterers need to understand when systems should be used, how they should be maintained, and how performance data should be logged. Without training and aligned data practices, the claimed savings cannot become auditable data that supports return-on-investment calculations or negotiations between owners and charterers.
• Mr. Shane Balani (GCMD) added that technologies such as wind-assisted propulsion and air lubrication are not plug-and-play solutions. They require class approval, dry-dock work, system integration, crew and superintendent training, and industry maturation. He described a project in which the investment decision, vessel ownership, and crew management were separated across different parties, resulting in very low initial utilisation of the installed sails because the crew were unfamiliar with the technology and cautious about its operational effects.
• Mr. Logan Lau (CMMI) explained how the Vessel Technical Index (VTI) can contribute to performance transparency. The system displays true energy efficiency after accounting for environmental influences such as wind, waves, and currents. By dynamically calibrating baselines with real-time data, VTI can support practical decisions such as hull or propeller cleaning while giving shipowners and charterers a shared performance basis.

Finance, incentives, and Hong Kong's role

• Mr. Patrick Banks (Kongsberg Maritime) said many customers want to reduce fuel use and carbon footprint, including under pressure from cargo owners, but the investment case still often falls apart at the point of capital commitment. He pointed to the need for trusted models that all parties can accept when calculating savings, especially for technologies such as wind-assisted propulsion that add weight and resistance even when not operating.
• Mr. Shane Balani (GCMD) argued that finance needs both a push and a pull. Pay-as-you-save models and blended finance can help, but banks also need incentives to take on the complexity of tracking vessel performance. He pointed to taxonomies, capital relief, and the ability to recognise retrofit investments as green or transitional finance as mechanisms that could encourage financial institutions to participate.
• Ms. Sabrina Chao (Guest of Honor), speaking from a shipowner and Hong Kong policy-advisory perspective, said investment decisions depend heavily on business model. Owners on time charter may not receive the fuel-saving benefit, while bulk owners face route variability, crew rotation, downtime, and training scalability issues. She noted that Hong Kong is looking seriously at green financing and could draw lessons from models such as GCMD's work.

Part II: Maritime Biofuels & Carbon Certification

Keynote Presentations

Mr. Shen Tao of the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) opened the biofuels and certification segment by framing biofuels as an immediate option for existing vessels, especially where Carbon Intensity Indicator performance needs improvement. He cautioned, however, that biofuels only support decarbonisation if their carbon integrity can be verified. His presentation linked IMO lifecycle assessment guidelines, Well-to-Tank, Tank-to-Wake, and Well-to-Wake accounting, fuel pathway codes, feedstock origin, indirect land-use change, and the distinction between default and actual emissions values. He recommended that Hong Kong build on existing international schemes rather than create unnecessary duplication.

Ms. Jude Lee of Transport & Environment challenged the assumption that biofuels are automatically sustainable. She drew attention to the land intensity of crop-based biofuels, indirect land-use change, food-security concerns, limited waste-based feedstocks such as used cooking oil, and the risk that paper-based certification may not be sufficient to prevent fraud. Her intervention shifted the question from whether biofuels can be used quickly to whether they should be scaled without stronger safeguards and a clearer long-term fuel strategy.

Dr. Prapisala Thepsithar of GCMD presented an assurance framework for drop-in biofuels based on three pillars: quality, greenhouse gas abatement, and quantity. GCMD's trials showed that fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) quality can remain stable under monitored commercial conditions, while hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) compatibility depends on the specific blend and fuel stream. The presentation also covered tracer trials, FAME fingerprinting, feedstock authenticity, measured biocomponent content, bunker delivery note documentation, and the need for routine commercial practices that make biofuel claims auditable.

Mr. Zhou Jun of RINA explained sustainable fuel certification under the European Union (EU) Renewable Energy Directive framework, covering biofuels, bioliquids, biomass fuels, renewable fuels of non-biological origin, recycled carbon fuels, chain-of-custody traceability, national schemes, and European Commission (EC)-recognised voluntary schemes.

Ms. Ting Li of Veritas Petroleum Services (VPS) then showed how fingerprinting and fuel testing can support traceability, quality assurance, and certification. Her presentation linked ISO 8217:2024, FAME fingerprinting, sampling, certificate of quality, bunker delivery note documentation, and digital bunkering to the broader challenge of ensuring that green fuel claims correspond to physical fuel characteristics.

Panel 2: Developing Hong Kong as a Certification Hub for Green Maritime Fuels

The second panel was moderated by Mr. Shen Tao (American Bureau of Shipping). The panellists included Mr. Tom Uiterwaal (Reconergy), Mr. Luigi Fiato (RINA), Ms. Jude Lee (Transport & Environment), and Dr. Prapisala Thepsithar (GCMD).

Building on existing certification schemes rather than creating a separate system

• Mr. Shen Tao (ABS) framed the question around whether Hong Kong could become a credible certification hub for renewable fuels while bridging Asian supply chains and European Union sustainability requirements without creating new barriers for producers.
• Mr. Tom Uiterwaal (Reconergy) argued that Hong Kong should look carefully at existing certification systems, especially International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC). Drawing on his own experience as an ISCC-certified market participant, he explained that ISCC is already deeply embedded in supply chains, with certified suppliers in China and certified customers in Europe. He stressed that the system has stringent audit requirements and that failure to pass an audit can remove a company from the market.
• Mr. Luigi Fiato (RINA) agreed that certification must be reliable and scalable. He warned that fragmentation can become a risk if every jurisdiction creates its own rules, because market participants may no longer know which requirements to follow. In his view, stakeholder engagement is essential, involving local authorities, certification bodies, companies, and other market actors. He later added that creating a new Hong Kong scheme would not be an easy route, because it would need recognition beyond Hong Kong and alignment with wider technical committees and international practice.

Environmental integrity, deployment speed, and feedstock context

• Ms. Jude Lee (T&E) cautioned Hong Kong against choosing speed over environmental integrity. While not dismissing all biofuel use, she argued that Hong Kong should avoid locking itself into unsustainable biofuel investment simply because rapid deployment appears attractive. She urged Hong Kong to define what kind of bunkering hub it wants to be over the next 10, 20, or 30 years, and what sustainability criteria it expects for port infrastructure and marine fuel pathways.
• Dr. Prapisala Thepsithar (GCMD) added nuance on feedstock sustainability. She noted that Asia has abundant biomass resources and that food-versus-fuel debates need to be understood in context, including seasonal conditions and farmer livelihoods. She cautioned against treating all first-generation feedstocks or all palm oil in the same way, and pointed to the need for criteria that consider specific production pathways and circumstances.

Actual values, default values, and credibility

• Mr. Tom Uiterwaal (Reconergy) expressed a strong preference for actual emissions values because they strengthen the credibility of carbon-emission savings. He explained that renewable fuels cost more than conventional fuels, so buyers need to understand what they are paying extra for: the verified carbon saving. At the same time, he acknowledged that default values may still have a role for large flows.
• Dr. Prapisala Thepsithar (GCMD) noted that actual values can sometimes be higher than default values, based on GCMD's supply-chain trial experience, which suggests that default values may need adjustment when applied globally.
• Mr. Tom Uiterwaal (Reconergy) added that actual values can also be lower than default values, showing why small samples should not be overgeneralised.

Hong Kong's practical role

The panel converged around a practical role for Hong Kong as a regulator, harmoniser, and professional-services platform rather than as the creator of a stand-alone certification system. Hong Kong can help ensure that renewable fuels used locally are consistent with international schemes and IMO requirements, while developing any Hong Kong-specific requirements only where they respond to local market needs. The panel's conclusion was that credibility will depend on alignment, stakeholder engagement, and the ability to verify supply-chain and emissions claims in ways recognised beyond Hong Kong.

Key Outcomes:

The forum identified four priorities for the next stage of maritime decarbonisation:

• EET adoption needs vessel-specific integration, verified performance data, and commercial structures that share savings fairly.
• Biofuel deployment needs sustainability safeguards, lifecycle accounting, physical assurance, and testing beyond paper certification.
• Hong Kong should align with existing international certification schemes while strengthening local capacity in verification, professional services, and green fuel trading.
• Research institutions can support the transition by building trusted data infrastructure, emissions analysis, lifecycle assessment, and policy translation between industry practice and public decision-making.

The forum's central conclusion was that decarbonisation now depends as much on institutions as on technology. Ships can be retrofitted, fuels can be tested, and finance can be mobilised, but only if performance, carbon intensity, and commercial benefits can be measured, verified, and trusted.