SBTi Maritime Guidance

SCIENCE BASED
TARGET SETTING FOR

THE MARITIME
TRANSPORT SECTOR
Version 1.0
November 2022
Science Based Target Setting for the Maritime Transport Sector - Version 1.0 | 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This guidance was developed by WWF on behalf of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), with
support from the Smart Freight Centre (SFC) and University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS).
SBTi mobilizes companies to set science-based targets and boost their competitive advantage in the
transition to the low-carbon economy. SBTi is a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global
Compact, World Resources Institute, and WWF and is one of the We Mean Business Coalition
commitments.
About WWF
WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations, with
over 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries.
WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in
which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world’s biological diversity, ensuring that
the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and
wasteful consumption.
About UMAS
UMAS delivers consultancy services and undertakes research for a wide range of clients in the public
and private sectors using models of the shipping system, shipping big data, and qualitative and social
science analysis of the policy and commercial structure of the shipping system. UMAS’s work is
underpinned by state- of-the-art data supported by rigorous models and research practices, which makes
UMAS world-leading on three key areas; using big data to understand drivers of shipping emissions,
using models to explore shipping’s transition to a zero emissions future and providing interpretation to
key decision makers.
About SFC
SFC is a global non-profit organization dedicated to an efficient and zero emissions freight sector. SFC
covers all freight and only freight. SFC works with the Global Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC) and
other stakeholders to drive transparency and industry action - contributing to Paris Climate Agreement
targets and Sustainable Development Goals.
SFC’s role is to guide companies on their journey to zero emissions logistics, advocate for supportive
policy and programs, and raise awareness. SFC’s goal is that 100+ multinationals reduce at least 30%
of their logistics emissions by 2030 compared to 2015 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
A Technical Working Group (TWG) of dedicated experts from industry and NGOs provided detailed input
during the planning phase and on various drafts of the guidance and tool.
TWG member organizations:
A.P. Moller-Maersk, Clean Cargo Working Group, CMA-CGM, Deutsche Post DHL Group (DPDHL),
DFDS, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Louis Dreyfus Armateurs, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Royal
Caribbean Cruises, Sustainable Shipping Initiative, United Parcel Service (UPS), Wallenius Wilhelmsen,
We Mean Business (WMB). We are very grateful for the input and engagement from all our Technical
Working Group members and project support teams. Opinions expressed within this document may not
represent the views of every Technical Work Group organization.
We would like to acknowledge the SBTi Technical review team: Karl Downey, Tereza Bicalho, Nate Aden.
Brenda Chan and Alberto Carrillo.
Primary authors:
Dr Jean-Marc Bonello – Principal consultant, UMAS

Dr Sophia Parker – Principal consultant, UMAS
Dr Tristan Smith – Associate Professor, UCL Energy Institute
Dan Smith – Program Director, Smart Freight Centre
Dr Alan Lewis – Technical Development Director, Smart Freight Centre
Fernando Rangel Villasana – Head of Sector Development SBTi, WWF
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2
PART 1: BACKGROUND 5
About this Guidance 5
Science Based Targets (SBTs) 6
Net-Zero Targets 6
The Sectoral Decarbonization Approach 7
The Maritime Transport Sector 8
PART 2: DECARBONIZATION PATHWAYS 9
Carbon Budget and Emissions Scenarios 9
Emission Trajectories for Maritime Transport 13
Maritime Transport Demand 16
Sector Carbon Intensity Pathways 17
Sector Segmentation 19
PART 3: SETTING TARGETS 20
Overview of the Target Setting Tool 20
Sector Specific Requirements 21
User Inputs for the SBTi Maritime Tool 23
PART 4: SUBMITTING, COMMUNICATING, AND UPDATING TARGETS 33
Submitting Targets for Validation by SBTi 33
Communicating Targets 33
Updating Targets 34
PART 5: CONCLUSION 35
Aiming for Ambitious and Achievable Targets 35
REFERENCES 36
APPENDIX 1: VESSEL TYPE AND SIZE CATEGORIES 39
APPENDIX 2: VESSEL KINDS AND TYPES 42
APPENDIX 3: ACRONYMS 46
PART 1: BACKGROUND
About this Guidance

This guidance document provides guidelines on emissions target setting and accounting for the maritime
transport sector. The document serves as an accompaniment to the SBTi maritime tool, describing how
to use the tool, the way the tool is structured, the rationale behind the carbon budget included in the tool,
and the way a variety of maritime industry-specific conditions and constraints are addressed in the tool.
The document also provides a summary of the SBTi target setting framework, general context on the
maritime industry with respect to emissions reduction target setting, and an explanation of how science-
based targets are indeed feasible for the maritime industry.
The intended audience for this document is users and providers of marine transportation services. The
document and the maritime tool are target setting aids for companies that own and operate oceangoing
vessels and companies setting targets for their supply chain emissions associated with maritime trade.
A public consultation was organized from the 29th of March till the 30th of April 2021 to obtain input from
stakeholders on this guidance document and accompanying target-setting tool. Feedback from 20
stakeholders was received through an online survey, and public webinars were held on the 29th of March
2021 to launch this consultation period.
SBTi has published several other documents regarding target setting for the transport sector. This
guidance complements these existing documents. While this guidance focuses on the maritime industry
specifically, SBTi provides direction on aviation target setting in its aviation guidance and provides
direction on road and rail sector target setting in its transport guidance. This guidance is consistent with
cross-sector methods and frameworks described in detail in Foundations of Science-based Target Setting
and Pathways to Net-Zero, and it includes a deepened assessment of mitigation pathways for the maritime
sector.
Taken together with the Science Based Target Setting Manual and SBTi Criteria, this guidance and tool
provide a comprehensive suite of information for companies to set near-term science-based targets for
maritime transport activities. The accounting methods and mitigation pathways described in this guidance
must also be followed by companies that wish to set net-zero targets, as described in the SBTi Corporate
Net-Zero Standard. The maritime transport sector resources will be reviewed and updated (if needed) on
a biannual basis.
Science Based Targets (SBTs)
Science-based targets are greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets that are consistent with
what is necessary, according to current climate science, for society to meet the goals of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change 2016 Paris Agreement. That is, targets that are consistent
with limiting the increase in combined surface air and sea surface temperatures averaged over the globe
and over a 30-year period to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit this
temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
As announced in July 2021, the SBTi made 1.5°C the central ambition in its target setting framework and
introduced several changes to its criteria effective July 15, 2022. These include:
• Increasing the minimum scope 1 and 2 ambition temperature classification from well below 2°C to
1.5°C.
• Increasing the minimum scope 3 ambition temperature classification from 2°C to well below 2°C.
• Shortening the timeframe for meeting the temperature targets from 15 to 10 years
Net-Zero Targets
Since the publication of its Net-Zero Standard, the SBTi makes a distinction between near-term and long-
term SBTs.
• A near-term SBT has a timeframe of 5-10 years.

• A long-term SBT is a target to reach the residual emissions level1 by 2050 at the latest, and commit
to neutralizing these residual emissions to reach net-zero.
All companies are encouraged to develop long-term (net-zero) targets in addition to near-term targets (i.e.,
long-term science-based targets in line with SBTi Net-Zero Criteria). Companies wishing to set a net-zero
target must set both near-term and long-term targets. Alternatively, companies may choose to set just a
near-term target (but they cannot set only a long-term target).
Important Note: All companies setting near-term science-based targets covering emissions from
own operations (e.g. vessel owners or operators) shall also submit long-term science-based
targets along with their near-term target submission.
1 Emissions sources that remain unabated in a specific year of a mitigation scenario. Long-term SBTs are consistent with the
level of residual emissions in the year of global or sector net-zero in 1.5°C-aligned mitigation pathways with low or no overshoot.
For maritime transport emissions, a long-term science-based target means reducing emissions to a
residual level in line with 1.5°C scenarios by no later than 2040. Companies using this guidance to set
near-term science-based targets covering scope 3 emissions from subcontracted maritime transport
operations (e.g. cargo owners or shippers) are not required to submit long-term science-based targets.
Companies are invited to familiarize themselves with the SBTi cross-sector resources, the SBTi How-To
Guide or Net-Zero Getting Started Guide, followed by reviewing the requirements of target setting in
the SBTi Criteria and Recommendations or Net-Zero Standard Criteria. To understand these
requirements in more depth, companies should then review the Target Validation Protocol and use
the target setting tool, and the net-zero tool to begin developing targets.
The Sectoral Decarbonization Approach

The Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA) is a method for calculating science-based targets. The
SBTi maritime tool is based on the SDA.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Energy Association (IEA)
publish mitigation pathways that are categorized across a variety of dimensions, including likely end-of-
century warming—a function of the cumulative global carbon budget and non-CO2 GHG emissions. Under
the SDA, the carbon in these budgets is allocated first to industry sectors and then to individual companies.
The SDA accounts for inherent differences among sectors, such as sector-specific mitigation potential
and expected growth within each sector relative to economic and population growth.
Another key aspect of the SDA is that SDA targets are based on the convergence of company-specific
emission intensities to a sector-wide emission intensity. That is, company targets calculated based on
SDA methods converge on the sector-specific emission intensity for the target year. For this reason, the
SDA is only applicable to homogenous sectors (i.e., sectors with a uniform measure of production across
companies, such as tonne-nautical miles for maritime transport). The steepness of different companies’
trajectories to this sector-wide intensity target may vary considering:
1. Each company’s emission intensity in the base year. A company with a higher emission intensity
in its base year will have more significant intensity reduction targets (on a tCO2e per tonne-nautical
mile basis), as that company’s emission intensity is further from the target year sector intensity
than the emission intensity of a company with a lower base year emission intensity.
2. Each company’s projected growth over the target setting period. Companies with higher projected
growth in market share over the target setting period will have larger intensity reduction targets, as
these companies will be responsible for a larger share of the sector-wide activity if they realize
their growth ambitions.
For more on the SDA, see SBTi’s SDA methods document, Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA): A
method for setting corporate emission reduction targets in line with climate science and SBTi’s
Foundations of Science-based Target Setting.
The Maritime Transport Sector

The maritime sector serves as a critical link in many global supply chains and as the foundation of
intercontinental trade. In its 2021 Review of Maritime Transport, United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development noted that more than 80% of global trade by volume is carried by sea (UNCTAD, 2021).
International shipping contributes to around 3% of global GHG emissions at around 1GT of CO2 equivalent
(CO2e) and is completely reliant on fossil fuels at the moment (Faber et al., 2020).
The maritime sector is also diverse. Ships engaged in international trade carry everything from refrigerated
food products and pharmaceuticals to bulk chemicals to railway locomotives and offshore oil production
platforms. Ships vary broadly in size. For example, bulk petroleum tankers alone may range from around
10,000 deadweight tonnes (DWT) to more than 400,000 DWT. Along with this range in cargoes and sizes,
vessel routes vary widely. One ship may operate on a weekly liner service between ports in a single region
and another on a tramp service that takes the ship around the world over the span of months or years.
Finally, the maritime sector is at an important decision point with regards its future role in global
decarbonisation. Ships have long asset replacement cycles, meaning that the emission performance of
ships built now may be locked in for decades to come. This makes decisions made in the short term
important due to the long-term impact that early commitment to zero emission technologies can have on
climate alignment. The SBTi endeavours to provide tools to expedite this transition and be a key part of
the effort towards the decarbonisation of maritime transport.
PART 2: DECARBONIZATION PATHWAYS
Carbon Budget and Emissions Scenarios

In order to develop sector-specific emission trajectories for shipping, two elements are to be defined:
sectoral carbon budget allocation and projected transport demand for the sector. Both are discussed in
the following sections based on scientific literature and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), International Energy Association (IEA) and International Maritime Organisation
(IMO). This section outlines the technical background on carbon budget and activity projections on which
the carbon intensity trajectories for the maritime transport sector were developed.
Defining a 1.5°C aligned carbon budget

A literature review around sector-specific climate alignment pathways during the development of this
guidance for maritime transport was conducted to understand the landscape and pathways available. .
The leading voice in establishing a climate aligned global carbon budget is the 2018 IPCC Special Report
(IPCC, 2018). This report estimates carbon budgets (i.e., cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2
emissions) to satisfy a 1.5°C scenario, a scenario in which global average temperatures remain 1.5°C
below pre-industrial levels. The IPCC 1.5°C scenario is based on a summary of the projections from
several climate models. The IPCC SR1.5 Summary for Policymakers (IPCC, 2018) highlights the
importance of near-term emissions reductions:
“In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO 2 emissions
decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 …, reaching net-zero around 2050 ...”
Relevant work conducted by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University
(Bullock et al., 2022; Traut et al., 2018) aligns with the IPCC outlook of sector decarbonisation by 2050
considering shipping to have a relatively stable share of carbon global carbon budget. The IEA NZE 2050
(IEA, 2021) work takes a different tack considering shipping a hard-to-abate sector which should be
afforded a larger share going into the future with emissions being reduced from other sectors before. This
implies that shipping does not decarbonise as a sector roughly until 2070 and the scenario is not 1.5°C
compliant. Furthermore, the IEA modelling has a heavy reliance on biofuels with minimal considerations
for change of land use and demand issues as shipping will be competing with other industries that do not
have many options for decarbonisation. Furthermore, the modelling does not consider the possibility of
low or zero-carbon fuel being retrofitted onto existing tonnage and only available to newbuilds. This goes
against several sources that show how retrofitting is essential for timely decarbonisation (Bullock et al.,
2020; IMO, 2021)
Thus, for the purposes of this work, the carbon budget allocation for the maritime transport sector was
derived from representative industry emissions levels using 2018 as base year and an IPCC-derived
emissions trajectory declining linearly between 2018 and 2030 and then at another, less aggressive, linear
trajectory down to 2050 in line with IPCC (IPCC, 2018).
The operational carbon inventory for the maritime transport sector in 2018 published in the Fourth IMO
Greenhouse Gas Study (Faber et al., 2020) was selected as the reference historic emissions inventory.
The IMO’s publication is consistent with relevant work in the literature considering a relatively stable share
of carbon global carbon budget for the shipping sector with sector emissions levels in 2018 corresponding
to 0.94 GT CO2e.
The resulting 1.5C aligned carbon budget (cumulative emissions from 2020 to 2050) amounts to 12.2 GT
CO2e, which is below the budget range estimated by the SBTi for this sector in the Pathways to Net-Zero
document (i.e. the 2020-2050 CO2 budget used by the SBTi to assess 1.5°C pathways for maritime
transport ranges between 12-16 GT CO2). For comparison, the IEA carbon budget estimate in their NZE
scenario between 2020 and 2050 is 15.6 GT CO2.
Developing a logistic trajectory

While the linear decrease in annual emissions is deemed scientifically robust and was used to inform the
total 1.5C aligned cumulative carbon budget for the sector (IPCC, 2018), evidence from existing sector-
specific research (Bullock et al., 2022) shows that this is unlikely to happen. This feedback was echoed
by industry actors during the public consultation carried out by SBTi in 2021. While the guidance aims to
make target setting as ambitious as possible, consideration for the likelihood of technological development
and scaling at the rate required for a linear decline in emissions lead to looking at alternative pathways.
To this end the authors utilized the cumulative budget defined by IPCC for 1.5°C alignment to derive an
emissions trajectory that accounts for differentiated decarbonisation rates in the coming decades, with a
more rapid decarbonisation in the years between 2030 and 2040 (see Figure 1). While this softens short-
term targets set up to 2030, targets set beyond 2030 are dramatically more aggressive bringing
decarbonisation closer to 2040. This approach is considered by Bullock et al. (2022) and Osterkamp,
Smith, and Søgaard (2021) in their work as part of the pathway to decarbonisation of the shipping industry
in line with the Paris Climate Accord.
Thus, a logistic curve was proposed as a robust way of taking into account the slow emergence phase
which allows costs of switching to low and zero-emission vessels to start decreasing as a steep learning
curve is faced. This gives way to a diffusion phase with the rapid adoption of new technology through
increased confidence and investment followed by a flattening of the curve to a reconfiguration phase when
laggards catch up as the technologies become the norm as per diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers,
2003). More recently, Way et al. (2022) propose a similar trajectory in their research on forecasts for global
energy transition based on empirical evidence.
IPCC 1.5DS Logistic IPCC 1.5DS
0%
-20%
-36%
-40%
-49%
-60%
-75%
-80%
-96%
-100%
2030 2040
Figure 1: Comparison of required emissions reduction for 1.5°C ambition with reference to 2020 for linear and
logistic scenarios
The authors suggest that low and zero-emissions fuels (e.g. hydrogen, ammonia and battery power
derived from renewable electricity) need to make up 27% of maritime fuels by 2036 and almost replace
fossil fuels completely by 2045. With this rationale, a logistic curve was developed on similar grounds to
represent a 1.5°C aligned emissions trajectory.
Adjusting for Well-To-Tank emissions

The sector carbon emissions published in the Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020 (Faber et al., 2020) are Tank-
to-Wake (TTW) therefore, a Well-to-Wake (WTW) conversion is required to be consistent with a WTW
CO2e emissions inventory based on an assumed fuel mix.
In order to define upstream Well-to-Tank (WTT) emission factors to complement the TTW 1.5°C emission
trajectory, assumptions regarding vessel technologies and fuel mix projections are required. Several
studies were consulted which ran different scenarios under a variety of assumptions in order to propose
a fuel mix that fit decarbonisation boundaries (DNV-GL, 2020; IEA, 2021; IRENA, 2021; Lloyd’s Register
& UMAS, 2019b) All studies consider future fuel mixes for shipping as a combination of fuels based on
renewable electricity, biogenic sources or fossil fuels. The proportions of each and the production process
of different fuels are affected by assumptions considered around production pathways.
Lloyd’s Register & UMAS, 2019b work presents three possible scenarios for fuel mix development:
renewables dominated, bio-fuel dominated and equal mix. The three pathways stem from varying
constraints on the quantitative method used to represent a qualitative narrative that considers global
energy trends and implications on the marine sector. The “Equal Mix” scenario was found well suited for
target setting as it is not particularly biased towards one outcome given the uncertainty around global
energy transition. This scenario assumes equal probability to the uptake of fuels from three energy
sources: biogenic, renewable electricity and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (CCS). See
Figure 2 below. This choice of fuel mix scenario was discussed during the consultation phase and was
well-received by companies and other stakeholders as it is not prescriptive giving flexibility on technology
choices. Further details regarding the assumptions regarding feedstock and production processes can be
found in (Lloyd’s Register & UMAS, 2019a).
Fossil fuels Biomass Renewable Fossil fuels w/CCS
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Figure 2: “Equal mix” fuel assumption towards decarbonisation in 2050 (Lloyd’s Register & UMAS, 2019b)
This equal mix scenario assumes both a ramp-up of renewable electricity-based marine fuels and bio-
based fuels together with a gradual addition of hydrogen and ammonia produced from natural gas with
CCS. A small percentage of fossil fuels are still in the mix even at 2050 mainly due to the assumption that
blending with bio-fuels may still be required. This includes an embedded assumption that all maritime sub-
sectors will have equal access to emerging fuels, technology, energy sources and feedstock with no
geographical or sub-sectoral barriers although it is acknowledged that certain technologies are more
applicable to particular trades or vessel types.
The upstream emission factors for the above fuel classes are documented in Table 6 from (Lloyd’s
Register & UMAS, 2019a) include CO2, N2O and CH4 and translated into CO2e using GWP100 conversion
factors from AR5, consistent with Faber et al. (2020).
Defining a Well Below 2°C aligned carbon budget

The IEA Energy Technology Perspectives (IEA, 2017) Beyond 2C scenario (B2DS) is used to define a
well-below 2°C carbon budget for the maritime transport sector, consistent with the assessment of B2DS
in Foundations of SBT-setting. The SBTi maritime tool WB-2°C carbon budget and emissions trajectory is
based on the WTW sector data included in the 2017 IEA Energy Technology Perspective (ETP) report2.
See Figure 2 below.
Users of this guidance should note that WB-2°C targets for scope 1 and scope 2 emissions are no longer
accepted under V5.0 of the SBTi Criteria, which became mandatory for all new SBT submissions in July
2022. WB-2°C aligned pathways are still usable for informing ambition over relevant Scope 3 emission
categories.
Emission Trajectories for Maritime Transport

Figure 2 below illustrates the resulting 1.5°C and WB-2°C emission trajectories on a WTW basis. The
trajectory implied by the IMO 2050 Initial Strategy reduction ambition is included for reference. However,
it should be noted that this trajectory assumes a WTW budget and a 50% reduction over both upstream
(WTT) and operational (TTW) emissions, which deviates from the actual ambition but allows for
comparison (IMO, 2018).
2 The IEA issued an update to the ETP in 2020 (IEA, 2020). The ETP 2020 publication is based on different assumptions, a
different structure and emissions boundary than ETP 2017. Some of the assumptions of ETP 2020 shift away from temperature
aligned goals to a less defined “Sustainable Development” and “Stated Policies” scenarios, with less clear parallels to the Paris
Agreement climate goals. The ETP 2020 also assumes a heavy reliance on biofuels for GHG emissions reductions but does not
fully justify whether biofuels will be available at the necessary scale or address potential effects of land use change associated
with biofuels. Considering these factors and recognizing that much of the data in the ETP 2020 is not presently available, the
authors decided to rely on the ETP 2017 instead of the 2020 ETP for informing the WB-2°C scenario for the maritime sector tool.
ETP 2017 WB2 IPCC 1.5 NZE 2050 budget (WtW) S-Curve IPCC 1.5 IMO 2050
1,200
1,000
Carbon budget (MT CO2e WTW)
800
600
400
200
-
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year
Figure 3: Maritime sector Well-to-Wake (WTW) emission pathways for IEA ETP B2DS, IEA NZE 2050, IPCC
1.5DS, IPCC 1.5DS Logistic, and International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2050 3.
3 WB-2°C and 1.5°C aligned trajectories are shown in bold in the legend.
Reference 2030 2040 2050
IEA ETP 2017 B2DS -10% -23% -36%
IPCC 1.5DS -49% -75% -100%
IEA NZE 2050 -12% -56% -85%
IPCC 1.5DS Logistic -36% -96% -100%
IMO 2050 -16% -32% -48%
Table 1: Required WTW carbon emissions reduction rate (relative to 2020 baseline)
Differences with industry climate goals

International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution 304(72)
outlines an ambition to “reduce the total annual GHG emissions [from international shipping] by at least
50% by 2050 compared to 2008” (IMO, 2018). These industry aspirational targets only address Tank-to-
Wake (TTW) emissions, not Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions. In Figure 3 above the IMO 2050 budget
shown assumes a TTW 50% reduction (in line with the IMO reduction target) as well as a WTT 50%
reduction. This does not suggest that measures or targets are in place to ensure that a 50% WTT reduction
will actually occur. Instead, a 50% WTT reduction was used for illustrative purposes to match the 50%
TTW reduction targeted by IMO. The carbon budget associated with meeting this minimum absolute
reduction ambition is reflected here for comparison with the WB-2°C and 1.5°C budgets calculated on a
WTW basis.
Maritime Transport Demand
In addition to determining a sector carbon budget through the SDA, SBTi also incorporated estimates of
future transport demand into the maritime tool. Transport demand is an important variable because
transport demand can be divided by the sector carbon budget to determine the sector carbon intensities
that align with the overall budget.
The SBTi maritime tool relies on the sector growth forecast scenario following representative
concentration pathway (RCP) 2.6 as defined by the IPCC and shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) 2
(Logistics) from the Fourth IMO GHG study (Faber et al., 2020)4. See Figure 2. The authors selected this
growth scenario for the scenario’s alignment with assumptions regarding decarbonization across the
global economy, and for the scenario’s representation of the rate of Gross Domestic Product growth5.
Although in theory, this RCP scenario is not aligned with a 1.5⁰C, it should be recognised for what it is; a
projection based on a certain set of assumptions that were valid at the time of publication. A stricter
demand projection would imply a reduced growth scenario making the required decarbonisation trajectory
less onerous. The impact of more recent events such as COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine on transport
demand are not accounted for. The use of RCP 2.6 is backed by the rigorous review and recognised
validity of the Fourth IMO GHG study at the time of publication of this key input assumption. This transport
demand projection will be assessed and revised if required during the next update cycle of this technical
guidance.
The SBTi recognizes that different segments of the maritime industry (see more below on sector
segmentation) may grow at different rates. For example, decarbonization across the entire global
economy may be associated with reduced demand for oil transportation at the same time that increased
global populations may be associated with increased demand for containerized cargo transportation.
Therefore, assuming uniform growth across all segments of the maritime industry may lead to outputs
4 While the Fourth IMO GHG Study carbon intensity values are based on international trade as opposed to domestic trade, the
operational intensity of a vessel of a specific size and type is not expected to vary significantly based solely on whether the vessel
engages on international or domestic voyages. For example, a specific 10,000 DWT bulker is not expected to have a significantly
different operating profile if trading between two ports in one country than another 10,0000 DWT bulker on a similar route that
happens to involve calls in two countries. For this reason, the intensity targets generated by the tool may be applied to domestic
as well as international travel – even though the IMO intensities used in the tool are based on data for international voyages.
5 Fourth IMO GHG Study describes two methods to project transport work related to non-energy products transportation, a
“Logistics Model” and a “Gravitation Model.” Both models project future transport work based on the historical relationship
between transport work and macroeconomic demand drivers and on long-term projections of these drivers developed either by
the IPCC or by economic institutions. However, the variables in the two models are different. The Logistics Model forecasts higher
transport demand than the Gravitation Model. While Faber et al do not state a preference for one model over the other, the
transport demand projections in the SBTi maritime tool are based on the Logistics Model. The Logistics Model projections were
used in the maritime tool because the Gravitation Model’s future long term trade growth assumptions are low by historical
standards and in comparison with other forecasts. Similarly, relying on the Logistics Model’s higher growth assumptions yields a
more conservative output (i.e. lower intensity targets) from the maritime tool.
from the maritime tool that are biased for or against certain segments of the maritime sector. While
projecting transport demand at a segment-specific level could address this issue, the resources required
to calculate these projections – and the host of assumptions that would need to be made to create robust
and credible segment-specific demand projections – preclude the use of segment-specific demand
projections at this time.
Bulker Tanker Container Other unitized Passenger Miscellaneous
150,000
125,000
Transport work (btnm)
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048
Year
Figure 4: Transport demand projection scenario (SSP2_RCP2.6_L) from Faber et al. (2020)
Sector Carbon Intensity Pathways

The SBTi maritime tool relies on the logistics trajectory cumulative sector budget derived from 2018 IPCC
1.5°C and the 2017 IEA WB-2°C carbon budgets and the IMO scenario RCP 2.6 SSP2 transport demand
forecasts between 2018 and 2050 to calculate carbon intensity trajectories for the maritime sector in grams
of CO2 equivalent per tonne nautical mile (gCO2e/tnm). This metric is also known in shipping as the Energy
Efficiency Operational Index (EEOI) put in place on a voluntary basis by the IMO.
As noted in the previous section, because the tool uses overall transport demand pathways in its intensity
calculations, it operates on the assumption that all segments in the maritime sector will grow at the same
rate. The carbon intensity trajectories (before sector segmentation), the quotient of the IPCC 1.5°C and
IEA WB-2°C carbon budgets and the Faber et al. (2020)sector transport demand forecasts, are shown in
Figure 5.
IEA ETP 2017 B2DS IPCC 1.5DS IEA NZE 2050 IPCC 1.5DS Logistic IMO 2050
25
20
Carbon intensity (gCO2e/tnm)
15
10
Year
Figure 5: Maritime sector WB-2°C and 1.5°C CO2e emission intensity trajectories 678
6
Historic carbon intensity values between 2008 and 2018 shown in this figure are based on data from IMO GHG
Studies (Faber et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2014).
7
Because IEA provides carbon budget data at five-year intervals, for the WB-2°C, total carbon emissions for 2020
and 2050 in this figure were linearly interpolated.
8
(IMO, 2018) The sector emissions intensity associated with meeting this minimum absolute reduction ambition is
reflected here or comparison with the WB-2°C and 1.5°C intensities. Please note that the IMO targets only address
TTW emissions, not WTW emissions.
Source 2030 2040 2050
IEA ETP 2017 B2DS -31% -52% -66%
IPCC 1.5DS -61% -84% -100%
IEA NZE 2050 -32% -73% -92%
IPCC 1.5DS Logistic -51% -98% -100%
IMO 2050 -35% -58% -73%
Table 2: Required carbon intensity reduction rate (relative to 2020 baseline)
Sector Segmentation
As described in the introduction, the maritime industry is comprised of a diverse mix of different ship types
and sizes. Therefore, the SBTi maritime tool breaks down the carbon intensity targets for the maritime
sector by vessel type and size. Vessel type and size categories and base year vessel type and size
category-specific operational intensities, as well as definitions of activity metrics, are taken from Fourth
IMO GHG Study (Faber et al., 2020). See Appendix 1 and 2 for a list of vessel types, vessel kind and size
categories covered by the SBTi maritime tool. The Fourth IMO GHG Study provides median values for
carbon intensity for each vessel size and type which provides an activity-specific baseline at 2018 for each
segment.
SBTi recognizes that different vessel types and sizes may operate in significantly different carbon intensity
ranges. For example, all other things being equal, a fully loaded 1,000 twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU)
containership is likely to generate more carbon emissions per tonne-nautical mile of transport activity than
a fully loaded 20,000 TEU containership. A granular pathway segmentation is provided to support users
of this guidance with decision making in order to seek optimization of the entire fleet concerned with their
maritime transport activities rather than optimizing any any specific vessel category. Segmentation allows
users to identify which set of vessel types and sizes can be prioritized based on carbon intensity,
operational limitations and customer requirements.
These differences in vessel carbon intensity ranges are particularly meaningful with respect to the SBTi
maritime tool because the SDA approach relies in part on vessel base year intensity values (see the
discussion of the SDA and the convergence approach above). As such, the tool outputs will be more
accurate if the base year intensity inputs are calculated from company specific activity and fuel
consumption data.
PART 3: SETTING TARGETS
Overview of the Target Setting Tool

The SBTi maritime transport tool is a workbook that calculates emission reduction targets to meet both a
WB-2°C and a 1.5°C temperature goals, according to the methods described above. The tool requires
users to input vessel type, vessel size category, base year emissions, and base and target year activity
data to generate targets. Data inputs are described in detail in the next section.
WTW base year GHG Base year activity

Type of shipping related emissions
emissions data
Scope 1
Passenger tonne-nautical mile
Vessel owners / Scope 3
operators Scope 1
Freight tonne-nautical mile
Scope 3
Cargo shippers / Passenger Scope 3 category 5 or 6 tonne-nautical mile

Logistics Service
Providers Freight Scope 3 Category 4 or 9 tonne-nautical mile
While the tool requires a limited number of user inputs, it is critical that the data input into the tool is as
accurate as possible. Inaccurate data inputs will yield inaccurate modelling results and targets.
As such, users of the SBTi maritime tool must use primary data from their own operations or from their
suppliers wherever possible. If primary data is not available, modelled data may be used to calculate
inputs to the maritime tool. Default data may only be used to calculate inputs to the tool when primary,
program, or modelled data is not available (or as otherwise noted below). The GLEC Framework for
Logistics Emissions Accounting and Reporting (Smart Freight Centre, 2019) includes additional
information on data types and on the importance of using primary data for target setting.
Sector Specific Requirements
The below table lists the sector-specific criteria that apply in addition to the SBTi general and Net-Zero
criteria.
Topic Criteria Description
Target year For all companies using this guidance the choice of
Shipping-C1
eligibility near-term target year must be no earlier than 2030
All companies setting near-term science-based

targets covering emissions from own operations
(e.g. vessel owners or operators) shall also submit
long-term science-based targets along with their
near-term target submission. For maritime transport
emissions, a long-term science-based target means
Target reducing emissions to a residual level in line with
Shipping-C2
requirement 1.5°C scenarios by no later than 2040.
Companies using this guidance to set near-term

science-based targets covering scope 3 emissions
from subcontracted maritime transport operations
(e.g. cargo owners or shippers) are not required to
submit long-term science-based targets.
Considerations for biogenic based fuels

Required carbon intensity reduction rates can be achieved by reducing demand for energy, including
through energy efficiency improvements, and reducing GHG intensity of fuel including the use of biofuels
(see the SBTi Criteria and Recommendations (SBTi, 2021)9 document for bioenergy emissions reporting
and target setting). Biofuels are eligible for achieving GHG reduction, as long as Well-to-Wake emission
factors are used , and if in-line with EU Directive (EU, 2018) , crop-based biofuels are avoided. If user is
not bound by the EU Directive, it is recommended that these guidelines are still followed. Alternatively
9 Within SBTi Criteria and Recommendations Version 5: C10 – “Bioenergy accounting: CO2 emissions from the combustion,
processing and distribution phase of bioenergy and the land use emissions and removals associated with bioenergy feedstocks,
shall be reported alongside a company’s GHG inventory. Furthermore, CO2 emissions from the combustion, processing and
distribution phase of bioenergy and the land use emissions and removals associated with bioenergy feedstocks shall be included
in the target boundary when setting a science-based target (in scopes 1, 2, and/or 3, as relevant) and when reporting progress
against that target.”
interim guidance provided by GLEC is to be used as a source for upstream assumptions. The IMO MEPC
is currently developing sector specific LCA guidelines to provide default values and framework for the
definition of emission factors for expected maritime fuels. Pending the review of these guidelines they may
be specified for use in due course.
Interaction with other sector decarbonization initiatives

There are several other initiatives related to maritime transport decarbonization which have been
developed to measure and disclose climate performance or alignment against a decarbonisation
benchmark. The most widely used are the Poseidon Principles for Finance, the Poseidon Principles for
Marine Insurance and the Sea Cargo Charter, which have been set up by the maritime financing,
insurance and chartering community respectively. While all these initiatives share the long-term purpose
of supporting net-zero transition, their intended users, mode of operation and implementation is
intrinsically different. While the SBTi maritime transport guidance aims to support near and long-term
corporate target-setting, the above initiatives focus on disclosure of climate alignment of shipping
portfolios for various types of financial institutions. That is, science-based targets are GHG emissions
reductions that companies must achieve within a specific timeframe to meet the decarbonization goals of
the Paris Agreement, whereas climate alignment is the degree to which a vessel, product, or investors
portfolio’s annual carbon intensity is in line with a decarbonization trajectory. In spite of this distinction, the
complementary nature of all these frameworks is crucial for engagement and mobilization of different
stakeholder groups towards a common outcome of measuring, disclosing and reducing sector emissions.
Usability limitations arising from the SBTi Fossil Fuel Policy

In March 2022, the SBTi published the SBTi Fossil Fuel Policy which affects the extent to which companies
engaging in fossil fuel businesses can commit to climate aligned targets. The combustion of fossil fuels
represents the single largest source of carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, the oil and gas industry is
one of the largest contributors of methane emissions. To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and avoid
catastrophic irreversible climate change, the sector must radically transform.
At the time of publication of this guidance, the SBTi is unable to accept commitments or validate targets
for companies in the oil and gas or fossil fuels sectors. This includes companies with any level of direct
involvement in exploration, extraction, mining and/or production of oil, natural gas, coal or other fossil
fuels, irrespective of percentage revenue generated by these activities, i.e. including, but not limited to,
integrated oil and gas companies, integrated gas companies, exploration and production pure players,
refining and marketing pure players, oil products distributors, gas distributors and retailers and traditional
oil and gas service companies.
Users of the SBTi maritime tool wishing to submit targets covering activities related to transportation of
fossil fuel products are advised to review the current status of the Fossil Fuel Policy as well as sector
specific requirements stated in the latest version of the SBTi Criteria.
For more information regarding the Fossil Fuel Policy and the implications for your company, please
consult the policy and contact SBTi for more assistance.
User Inputs for the SBTi Maritime Tool

Vessel type
Users must select from one of fourteen vessel types.
The vessel types10 included in the tool are the same vessel types described in the Fourth IMO GHG Study:
1. Bulk Carrier
2. Chemical Tanker
3. Container
4. Cruise
5. Ferry Passenger Only
6. Ferry Roll-On/Off and Passenger
7. General Cargo
8. Liquefied Gas Tanker
9. Oil Tanker
10. Other Liquids Tanker
11. Refrigerated Bulk Carrier
12. Roll On/Roll Off (RoRo)
13. Vehicle Carrier
14. Offshore
10 Chemical, oil and liquefied gas tankers as well as offshore vessels are subject to the SBTi Fossil Fuel Policy.
See Appendix 2 for examples of the kinds of vessels included in each of these vessel type categories.
Please note that the vessel classification scheme described here covers vessels that may trade both
domestically and internationally. As such, the tool can be used to address both domestic and international
vessel operations.
Users that operate or transport cargo on vessels of more than one type can generate targets for multiple
types of vessel by entering their vessel type data on the SBT Aggregator Tab11 of the tool.
Vessel size category

Users must select from a variety of vessel size categories for each type of vessel.
Units of measure for vessel size categories vary by vessel type according to the units presented in the
Fourth IMO GHG Study. For example, bulk carrier units are measured in DWT, containership units are
measured in TEU, gas tanker units are measured in cubic meters (CBM), and passenger ferry units are
measured in gross tonnes (GT).
Users that operate or transport cargo on vessels in more than one size category can generate combined
targets addressing multiple vessel size categories with the SBT Aggregator Tab of the tool.
As described in the section regarding sector segmentation above, the emission intensity of vessels varies
not only across vessel types but by vessel size within a vessel type. These variations in intensity are
important for modelling targets because the SBTi maritime tool’s calculations rely on estimated vessel
operational intensities, by size class, as taken from the Fourth IMO GHG study.
Therefore, wherever possible, users are encouraged to input information about the actual size classes of
the vessels that they operate or on which their cargo is carried. Provided with accurate vessel size
category information, the tool will incorporate size class specific intensity data into its calculations.
In some cases, a user of the tool (e.g. a user of maritime transport services) may not know the size class
of the vessels on which its cargo is carried. In these circumstances, the user can select the “Default” size
class in the size category dropdown for the tool.
It is important to note, however, that selecting the default size class in the tool means that the tool uses a
conservative approach in estimating base year intensity values. Specifically, selecting the default size
class means the tool will incorporate base year vessel intensity values using a weighted average of the
11The optional SBT Aggregator tab helps generate a combined target for all vessel types and size categories input into the tool.
The tool generates combined targets based on the weighted average of each vessel type and size category’s share of the total
base year activity as input into the tool.
lower quartile of intensities from the Fourth IMO GHG Study for the selected vessel category. These base
year intensity values also impact the target year intensities (accounting for sector growth, as described in
the transport demand section above). As such, the target year intensity values for the default size class
are comparatively difficult to achieve.
Base year
Users must select a base year for target setting. The base year must be no earlier than 2015. However,
users are encouraged to select the most recent year for which they have accurate emissions and activity
data as their target setting base year. Also, when selecting a base year, it is important to consider how
representative base year emissions may be of the user’s operations and not to select a base year simply
to capture progress already made to date.
Target year
Users must select a target year for near-term target setting. As per sector-specific criteria (Shipping-C1),
for all companies using this guidance the choice of target year must be no earlier than 2030.
The target year selection must also be in line with valid SBTi Criteria (i.e., as per SBTi Criteria version 5.0,
eligible target years can be no further than ten years from the year of submission). However, the tool does
permit users to calculate targets out to 2050 for longer-term planning and strategy development.
Base year Well-to-Wake emissions

Users must input the total Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions, in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalents (CO2e),
for the selected base year.
WTW emissions are emissions generated across the life cycle of a fuel. They include both Well-to-Tank
(WTT) emissions, generated in the fuel’s production and distribution, and Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions,
generated in the combustion of the fuel.
The following subsections address calculation of base year activity for two general categories of
companies that may use the tool:
1. Vessel owners and operators, those companies that own or operate vessels and are setting
emission reduction targets for these vessels.
2. Cargo Shippers and Logistics Service Providers (LSPs), those companies that contract marine
transportation services from vessel owners and operators and that are setting emission reduction
targets for their supply chain emissions. Shippers may include freight shippers and companies that
transport people by vessel (e.g., companies with employee commuting or business travel
emissions associated with transportation by vessel).
Base year emissions for vessel owners and operators
Vessel owners and operators can calculate base year WTW emissions by:
1. Multiplying the total base year consumption of each type of fuel with the life cycle fuel emission
factor for that type of fuel to determine the base year emissions for each fuel type. WTW fuel
emission factors for a variety of marine fuels are available in the GLEC Framework (Smart Freight
Centre, 2019)12.
2. Summing the base year emissions for all fuel types to determine the total base year WTW
emissions.
Base year emissions for cargo shippers and logistics service providers
Cargo Shippers and LSPs are unlikely to know the amount of fuel consumed by carriers to transport cargo
on their behalf. As such, shippers and LSPs will generally need to estimate their base year emissions
using default emission intensity factors. Emission intensity factors describe the amount CO 2e emitted per
unit of transport activity (e.g., per tonne nautical mile).
Cargo shippers and LSPs can calculate base year emissions by:
1. Determining their transport activity. Instructions for calculating freight transport activity are included
in the GLEC Framework (Smart Freight Centre, 2019). Detailed instructions for estimating
transport activity on passenger vessels are provided below.
2. Multiplying their transport activity by the appropriate WTW emission factor for that transport activity
depending on maritime fuels used. Default emission intensity factors for maritime transportation
are included in the GLEC Framework (Smart Freight Centre, 2019)13.
12 Fuel emission factors are also published in the Fourth IMO GHG Study. However, the IMO emission factors only account for
the TTW phase of the fuels’ life cycles. Because the IMO emission factors do not account for the WTT phase of the fuel life cycles,
they cannot be used to calculate WTW emissions without additional WTT data. WTT emission factors for the maritime tool are
based on assumptions regarding vessel technologies as described in the Lloyd’s Register and UMAS zero-emission vessel
transition pathways document (Lloyd’s Register & UMAS, 2019a).
13The GLEC Framework emission intensity factors are presented in units of gCO 2e per tonne kilometer. The unit of measure for
distance used in the SBTi maritime tool is nautical miles. If a user of the maritime tool calculates transport activity in tonne nautical
miles, they will need to convert the GLEC Framework default emission intensities from gCO 2e per tonne kilometer to gCO2e per
tonne nautical mile before using those default intensities to estimate base year emissions. Also note that the GLEC Framework
emission intensity factors focus on freight transport. Shippers transporting people on passenger only ferries and on cruise ships
will need to work with the vessel owner operator to determine appropriate emission intensity factors for these passenger vessels.
Base year activity
Users must input the transport activity for the selected base year.
The following subsections address calculation of base year activity for Vessel owners / Operators and
Shippers and LSPs.
Transport activity for vessel owners and operators: Freight

Vessel owners and operators using the tool to set targets for their own vessel operations must input their
total transport activity for the base year. Owners and operators of all vessel types, except for passenger-
only ferries and cruise ships, must input actual transport activity in tonne nautical miles into the maritime
tool.
Transport activity in tonne nautical miles is the product of the actual mass of cargo carried and the distance
that each unit of mass of cargo was carried.
The tonne nautical mile transport activity calculation must be conducted on a per tonne of cargo carried
basis. Transport activity is in almost all cases not the product of the total cargo carried and the total
distance sailed across the entire reporting period.
For example, consider these five fictitious voyage legs:
Distance sailed – Cargo carried

Voyage leg Transport activity
laden (NM) (tonne)
1 1,000 200,000 200,000,000
2 500 300,000 150,000,000
3 1,800 250,000 450,000,000
4 2,000 325,000 650,000,000
5 700 180,000 126,000,000
TOTAL 6,000 1,255,000 1,576,000,000
Based on the voyage profile described here:
▪ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 1,576,000,000 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑛𝑚
▪ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑆𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 × 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 = 7,530,000,000 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑛𝑚
▪ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 ≠ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑆𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 × 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑
Further information on calculating transport activity is included in the GLEC Framework (Smart Freight
Centre, 2019).
Transport activity for vessel owners and operators: Passengers

Because cruise ships and passenger-only ferries’ principal transport activity involves moving people as
opposed to freight, the maritime tool uses transport activity in gross ton (GT) nautical miles for these two
ship types.
Transport activity in GT nautical miles is the product of the GT of a ship and the distance that that ship
travelled during the reporting period.
Vessel owners and operators must conduct the GT nautical mile transport activity calculation on a per
vessel basis. That is, a user of the tool must calculate the GT nautical mile transport activity for each
vessel and then sum these vessel-specific GT nautical mile transport activities to determine the total
transport activity of a group of vessels. Multiplying the total GT of a fleet of vessels with the total distance
sailed by that fleet will (in most cases) not yield the GT nautical mile transport activity for that fleet.
Transport activity for vessel owners and operators: combined freight and
passengers
Owners and operators of combination roll on/off and passenger (RoPax) vessels must input actual or
estimated transport activity in tonne nautical miles into the maritime tool.
RoPax vessels carry both passengers and freight. As such, transport activity calculation for these vessels
requires conversion of passenger counts into mass to allow for an estimation of the total mass of cargo
(combined freight and passenger) carried a given distance.
In most cases, it is not practicable to weigh individual passengers on RoPax vessels. Similarly, it may not
be practicable for RoPax vessel operators to determine the actual mass of each vehicle loaded on their
vessels. For this reason, default passenger and vehicle masses may be used to estimate RoPax transport
activity for input into the maritime tool.
Pending the publication of ISO Standard 14083 (Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions
arising from operations of transport chains), default passenger and vehicle masses from Table B.1 of
Standard EN 16258 (Methodology for calculation and declaration of energy consumption and GHG
emissions of transport services (freight and passengers)) may be used to determine RoPax vessel cargo
masses for RoPax vessel tonne nautical mile transport activity calculations.
To estimate total cargo mass on RoPax vessels:
1. Multiply the passenger count by the default passenger mass to estimate the total passenger mass.
2. If gross vehicle mass data is not available, multiply the vehicle count for each vehicle type by the
appropriate vehicle default mass value to estimate the total vehicle mass.
3. Sum up the total mass of freight transported on the vessel (note that the default vehicle masses in
Table B.1 of Standard EN 16258 do not include the mass of cargo transported on freight vehicles,
the defaults only account for the vehicle masses).
4. Sum the estimated total passenger mass, actual or estimated total vehicle mass, and actual freight
mass to determine the total cargo mass.
The total cargo mass can be multiplied by the distance that mass of cargo was carried to determine
transport activity. Note that these calculations, like those for pure freight vessels, must be conducted on
a per voyage (or per voyage leg, if passengers and vehicles are loaded and offloaded on the leg of a
voyage) basis. In almost all cases, multiplying the total estimated cargo mass with the total distance sailed
across several vessels or voyages during a reporting period will not yield the transport activity.
Transport activity for cargo shippers and logistics service providers: freight
Shippers and LSPs using the tool to set targets for their supply chain transport operations must input only
the transport activity for which they are responsible for the base year.
LSPs and shippers of freight must input transport activity into the maritime tool in tonne nautical miles.
Transport activity in tonne nautical miles is the product of the actual mass of cargo carried and the distance
that each unit of mass of cargo was carried.
See the section “Transport Activity for Vessel Owners and Operators: Freight” above and the GLEC
Framework (Smart Freight Centre, 2019) for details on calculating freight transport activity.
Transport activity for shippers: passengers

Passenger only ferries and cruise vessels
Shippers of people on passenger-only ferries and on cruise vessels must input transport activity for which
they are responsible into the maritime transport tool in GT nautical miles. These shippers will need to
coordinate with the operator of the vessels that provided the transport activity to determine the GT nautical
miles for which they as a shipper are responsible.
Specifically, allocation of GT nautical mile shares on passenger-only ferries and cruise vessels can be
completed as follows:
1. Determine the GT nautical mile transport activity for the cruise vessels or passenger-only ferries
used to transport people for the shipper.
2. Determine the passenger nautical mile transport activity for the cruise vessels or passenger-only
ferries used to transport people for the shipper.
3. Calculate the shipper-specific share of GT nautical mile transport activity based on the shipper-
specific share of passenger nautical mile transport activity.
For example:
• Shipper A’s employees travel to and from work on passenger-only ferries operated by Ferry
Operator Z. Shipper A is setting an employee commuting emission reduction target using the
maritime tool.
• Ferry Operator Z operates five different ferries on the lanes used by Shipper A’s employees. Ferry
Operator Z calculates its total transport activity during the base year across these vessels to be
100,000,000 GT nautical miles.
• Ferry Operator Z calculates its total base year transport activity in passenger nautical miles across
these vessels to be 5,000,000 passenger nautical miles. Passenger nautical miles can be
calculated using the method described above for calculating tonne nautical miles, except per
voyage (or per voyage leg) passenger count is substituted for per voyage (or per voyage leg)
tonnes of cargo.
• Shipper A determines that its employees travelled 200,000 passenger nautical miles on Ferry
Operator Z vessels during the base year.
• Shipper A’s “share” of Ferry Operator Z’s base year GT nautical miles transport activity can be
calculated based on the ratio of Shipper A’s passenger nautical miles transport activity to Ferry
Operator Z’s total passenger nautical miles transport activity.
That is, the ratio of Ferry Operator Z total base year passenger nautical miles to Shipper A base year
passenger nautical miles is 25:
5,000,000 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑛𝑚𝑍

= 25: 1
200,000 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑛𝑚𝐴
Stated differently, Ferry Operator Z conducted 25 units of total transport activity on these vessels for each
unit of transport activity it conducted for Shipper A.
Assuming that the same ratio of activity that applied to passenger nautical miles applies to GT nautical
miles, Shipper A’s share of GT nautical mile transport activity can be calculated as follows:
100,000,000 𝐺𝑇 𝑛𝑚𝑍
𝐺𝑇 𝑛𝑚𝐴 = = 4,000,000 𝐺𝑇 𝑛𝑚
25
RoPaX vessels
Shippers of people on RoPax vessels must input the transport activity for which they are responsible into
the maritime transport tool in tonne nautical miles.
In most cases, it is not practical to determine the weight of individual passengers travelling on RoPax
vessels. For this reason, default passenger masses may be used to estimate RoPax activity for input into
the maritime tool.
Pending the publication of ISO Standard 14083 (Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions
arising from operations of transport chains), default passenger masses from Table B.1 of Standard EN
16258 (Methodology for calculation and declaration of energy consumption and GHG emissions of
transport services (freight and passengers)) may be used to determine RoPax vessel cargo masses for
RoPax vessel tonne nautical mile transport activity calculations.
To estimate a shipper-specific share of mass on a RoPax vessel, then, the shipper must multiply their
passenger count on that vessel with the default passenger mass.
As described above for freight, the passenger mass can be multiplied by the distance that passengers
travelled to determine passenger transport activity in tonne nautical miles. Note that these calculations
must be conducted on a per passenger nautical mile basis. In almost all cases, multiplying the total
estimated passenger mass with the total distance sailed by all passengers during the base year will not
yield the transport activity.
Transport activity for shippers: Combined Freight and Passengers

Shippers of people and freight on (RoPax) vessels must input actual or estimated transport activity for
which they are responsible into the maritime tool in tonne nautical miles.
RoPax vessels carry both passengers and freight. As such, transport activity calculation for these vessels
requires conversion of passenger counts into mass to allow for an estimation of a shipper’s share of the
total cargo (combined freight and passenger) carried a given distance. See the section “Transport Activity
for Vessel Owners and Operators: Combined Freight and Passengers” above for calculating combined
freight and passenger masses on RoPax vessels.
Expected Target Year Activity
Users must input the expected activity for the selected target year.
As for base year activity data, target year activity data must be input in units of GT nautical miles for
passenger-only ferries and cruise vessels, and in units of tonne nautical miles for all other vessel types.
Target year activity may be based on company-specific historical growth rate calculations. Alternatively,
a user can calculate target year activity based on future growth rate estimates.
Because the targets generated by the SBTi maritime tool account for a company’s projected share of
sector activity based on the target year activity provided by the user, it is important that credible target
year activity is input into the tool. A user that overestimates target year activity will generate emissions
intensity targets that are more difficult to meet than needed to remain within the sector emissions budget.
Similarly, a user that underestimates target year activity will generate emission intensity targets that do
not serve as accurate indicators of the amount of emission reduction measures that the company must
implement to meet the sector emissions intensity trajectory.
PART 4: SUBMITTING, COMMUNICATING, AND UPDATING
TARGETS
The information included here in Part 4 summarizes the SBTi target submission, communication, and
maintenance process as described on the SBTi website. For current information on and a step-by-step
guide to the target submission, communication, and disclosure process, please refer to SBTi resources.
Also note that SBTi may withdraw or adjust its maritime tool at any time. Tool updates may be warranted
to address matters such as new information that alters the assumptions inherent in the tool, or new
information on the decarbonization pathways necessary to meet global climate goals.
Submitting Targets for Validation by SBTi

To apply for an SBTi-approved target, a company must complete the Target Submission Form and email
it to [email protected]. Submissions are validated against the general SBTi Criteria and
accompanying SBTi Target Validation Protocol.
The form, available on the SBTi website, requires disclosure of a full GHG emissions inventory (by scope)
in the base year, activity figures, and target related data that SBTi will use to assess the proposed targets.
All data submitted in the form is treated as confidential and is only used by the SBTi technical experts for
validation of a submission against the SBTi science-based criteria.
Users of this maritime transport sector guidance and tool should note that these sector specific SBTi
pathways focus exclusively on marine fuel emissions. For target setting methodologies covering non
marine fuel -related emissions (e.g. seaport operations, other transport operations, office buildings, etc),
please refer to available SBTi guidance. All targets submissions from users of this sector guidance are
required to demonstrate compliance to the full list of SBTi Criteria, which may result in additional scope 1,
scope 2 or scope 3 emission reduction targets covering non fuel related emissions.
Communicating Targets
To be consistent with SBTi requirements, all targets must include at least five pieces of information:
1. Emissions covered by the target
2. Base year for target setting
3. Target year
4. Percentage reduction in the target year
5. Units of measure for the target
Targets may be expressed either as absolute emissions (tonnes CO2e) or on an intensity basis (e.g.,
tonnes CO2e per tonne nautical mile).
For example, a target may be communicated as follows:
Company A commits to reduce Well-to-Wake GHG emissions 60% per tonne nautical mile from container
shipping operations by 2030 from a 2019 base year.
If a company is using biofuels, guidance related to the reporting when using biofuels found in the SBTi
Recommendations and Criteria (SBTi, 2021) document has to be followed. Please note criteria C10
requiring the following footnote to be included in target language: *Tthe target boundary includes land-
related emissions and removals from bioenergy feedstocks. For further guidance, companies should refer
to the Target Validation Protocol.
Updating Targets
Targets must be recalculated if there are any changes to a company or its operations that would impact
the relevance or rigour of an existing target. For example, target recalculation may be warranted
following material changes in:
• Company structure (e.g., acquisitions, divestitures, mergers, insourcing or outsourcing).
• Company growth projections.
• Data used or assumptions made in calculating user inputs to the maritime tool (e.g., discovery of
significant errors or a number of cumulative errors that are collectively significant).
Companies participating in the SBTi must notify SBTi of any significant changes to targets and report
these changes publicly.
In addition to recalculating targets following significant changes, SBTi recommends an annual review of
the validity of targets developed using the maritime tool. Targets must be reassessed at least every five
years.
PART 5: CONCLUSION
Aiming for Ambitious and Achievable Targets

The targets generated by the maritime tool are achievable. Several researchers conducting analyses of
shipping emission intensities and sector demand have concluded that it is possible for the sector to meet
a 1.5°C temperature goal (Bullock et al., 2020, 2022; Faber et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2021)
The maritime sector needs to decarbonize by 2050 to meet a 1.5°C aligned target, even if doing so will be
difficult. In addition to the high abatement costs, as described in Part 1, a number of market barriers and
failures impede maritime sector transport activity emission intensity reductions (Fitzpatrick et al., 2019).
Committed emissions – emissions “locked in” from existing and long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure –
already account for a significant percentage of the 1.5°C budget for the sector (Traut et al., 2018).
Scenarios for industry decarbonization by 2040-2050 include short term measures, such as slow steaming
and technical and operational improvements, as well as a shift towards zero emissions vessels by 2030
(Bullock et al., 2020; Lloyd’s Register & UMAS, 2019b; Smith et al., 2019). Ammonia, biofuels, hydrogen,
methanol, and synthetic e-fuels will displace fossil fuels in a decarbonized maritime industry, with the
uptake of specific alternative fuels varying according to factors like the rate of change of the onshore fuel
mix, the price of primary energy sources (e.g., renewable electricity), and regulation (DNV, 2021; Smith
et al., 2021).
While the results from scenario analyses can vary based on model inputs and associated assumptions,
there is widespread agreement that robust regulation is critical for the maritime sector to achieve science-
based emission reduction targets. Regulation is essential to mitigate risks associated with the large capital
investments that will be required for decarbonization of the sector and is also essential to remove market
barriers to uptake of decarbonization solutions. Indeed, the uptake of alternative fuels can be accelerated
by stringent carbon constraints and industry carbon pricing – levers that can only be pulled uniformly by
regulatory bodies.
The challenges are clear: an industry sector that provides a critical service for society and that also
generates expensive to abate emissions; policy and market barriers to decarbonization; a narrow and
rapidly closing window for action to meet global climate goals; no single solution that will work universally
across the sector.
These challenges are not insurmountable. But for companies to address the challenges appropriately,
they must understand their part in meeting them. The SBTi maritime tool generates emission reduction
targets aligned with climate science that allow users of the tool to determine how much they must
contribute to achievement of global climate goals.
REFERENCES
Bullock, S., Mason, J., Broderick, J., & Larkin, A. (2020). Shipping and the Paris climate agreement: a
focus on committed emissions. BMC Energy, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42500-020-00015-2
Bullock, S., Mason, J., & Larkin, A. (2022). The urgent case for stronger climate targets for international
shipping. Climate Policy, 22(3), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1991876
DNV-GL. (2020). Maritime Forecast To 2050. Energy Transition Outlook 2020.

https://www.isesassociation.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/DNVGL_2020_Maritime_Forecast_to_2050_WEB.pdf
DNV. (2021). Maritime Forecast To 2050. Energy Transition Outlook 2021.

https://brandcentral.dnvgl.com/original/gallery/10651/files/original/205a6bacc6d748f98e30885270baf0f2.
pdf
EU. (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December
2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast). Official Journal of the
European Union, 328/82. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L2001&from=EN
Faber, J., Hanayama, S., Zhang, S., Pereda, P., Comer, B., Hauerhof, E., Schim van der Loeff, W., Smith,
T., Zhang, Y., Kosaka, H., Adachi, M., Bonello, J. M., Galbraith, C., Gong, Z., Hirata, K., Hummels, D.,
Kleijn, A., Lee, D. S., Liu, Y., … Xing, H. (2020). Fourth Greenhouse Gas Study 2020. International
Maritime Organization.
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/Fourth IMO GHG Study
2020 - Full report and annexes.pdf
Fitzpatrick, N., Rehmatulla, N., Lewis, C., Deyes, K., & Faber, J. (2019). Reducing the Maritime Sector’s
Contribution to Climate Change and Air Pollution: Identification of Market Failures and other Barriers to
the Commercial Deployment of Emission Reduction Options.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8156
71/identification-market-failures-other-barriers-of-commercial-deployment-of-emission-reduction-
options.pdf
IEA. (2017). Energy Technology Perspectives 2017 - Catalysing Energy Technology Transformations. IEA
Publications. https://doi.org/10.1787/energy_tech-2017-en
IEA. (2020). Energy Technology Perspectives 2020. IEA Publications.

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264109834-en
IEA. (2021). Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. IEA Publications.
https://doi.org/10.1787/c8328405-en
IMO. (2018). Initial IMO Strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships - MEPC.304(72) Annex 11.
International Maritime Organization.
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/Resolution
MEPC.304(72)_E.pdf
IMO. (2021). Guidelines Supporting the CII Framework. Considerations on CII targets - ISWG-GHG 8/3/3.
IMO.
IPCC. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of
1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of
strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, (V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O.
Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S.
Connors, J. B. Robin Matthrews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, & T.
Waterfield (eds.)). In Press. https://doi.org/10.1038/291285a0
IRENA. (2021). World Energy Transitions Outlook: 1.5°C Pathway. International Renewable Energy
Agency. https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Jun/IRENA_World_Energy_Transitions_Outlook_2021.pdf
Lloyd’s Register, & UMAS. (2019a). Fuel production cost estimates and assumptions.
https://sustainableworldports.org/wp-content/uploads/Lloyds-Register_2019_Fuel-production-cost-
estimates-and-assumptions-report.pdf
Lloyd’s Register, & UMAS. (2019b). Zero-Emission Vessels: Transition Pathways. Lloyd’s Register,
UMAS. https://sustainableworldports.org/wp-content/uploads/Lloyds-Register-and-UMAS_2019_Zero-
emission-vessels-transition-pathways-report.pdf
Osterkamp, P., Smith, T., & Søgaard, K. (2021). Five percent zero emission fuels by 2030 needed for
Paris-aligned shipping decarbonization (Issue March). UMAS, Getting to Zero Coalition.
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/news/five-percent-zero-emission-fuels-by-2030-needed-for-paris-
aligned-shipping-decarbonization
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
SBTi. (2021). SBTi Criteria and Recommendations (TWG-INF-002 - Version 5.0) (Issue Ocotber). Science
Based Targets Initiative. http://sciencebasedtargets.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SBTi-criteria.pdf
Smart Freight Centre. (2019). Global Logistics Emissions Council Framework for Logistics Emissions
Accounting and Reporting. https://www.feport.eu/images/downloads/glec-framework-20.pdf
Smith, T., Baresic, D., Fahnestock, J., Galbraith, C., Velandia Perico, C., Rojon, I., & Shaw, A. (2021). A
Strategy for the Transition to Zero-Emission Shipping. UMAS, Getting to Zero Coalition. https://www.u-
mas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Transition-Strategy-Report.pdf
Smith, T., Jalkanen, J.-P., Anderson, B., Corbett, J. J., Faber, J., Hanayama, S., O’Keeffe, E., Parker, S.,
Johansson, L., Aldous, L., Raucci, C., Traut, M., Ettinger, S., Nelissen, D., Lee, D., Ng, S., Agrawal, A.,
Winebrake, J. J., ’t Hoen, M., … Pandey, A. (2014). Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014. International
Maritime Organization.
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/Third Greenhouse Gas
Study/GHG3 Executive Summary and Report.pdf
Smith, T., O’Keeffe, E., Hauerhof, E., Raucci, C., Bell, M., Deyes, K., Faber, J., & ’t Hoen, M. (2019).
Reducing the Maritime Sector’s Contribution to Climate Change and Air Pollution. Scenario Analysis :
Take-up of Emissions Reduction Options and their Impacts on Emissions and Costs (Issue July). UMAS,
E4tech, Frontier Economics, CE Delft.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8160
18/scenario-analysis-take-up-of-emissions-reduction-options-impacts-on-emissions-costs.pdf
Traut, M., Larkin, A., Anderson, K., McGlade, C., Sharmina, M., & Smith, T. (2018). CO2 abatement goals
for international shipping. Climate Policy, 18(8), 1066–1075.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1461059
UNCTAD. (2021). Review of Maritime Transport 2021. United Nations Publications.

http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2015_en.pdf
Way, R., Ives, M. C., Mealy, P., & Farmer, J. D. (2022). Empirically grounded technology forecasts and
the energy transition. Joule, 6(9), 2057–2082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.08.009
APPENDIX 1: VESSEL TYPE AND SIZE CATEGORIES
Vessel type Size category Units

0-9999 DWT
10000-34999 DWT
35000-59999 DWT
Bulk Carrier
60000-99999 DWT
100000-199999 DWT
200000-+ DWT
0-4999 DWT
5000-9999 DWT
Chemical Tanker 10000-19999 DWT
20000-39999 DWT
40000-+ DWT
0-999 TEU
1000-1999 TEU
2000-2999 TEU
3000-4999 TEU
Container 5000-7999 TEU
8000-11999 TEU
12000-14499 TEU
14500-19999 TEU
20000-+ TEU
0-4999 DWT
5000-9999 DWT
General Cargo
10000-19999 DWT
20000-+ DWT
0-49999 CBM
50000-99999 CBM
Liquefied Gas Tanker
100000-199999 CBM
200000-+ CBM
0-4999 DWT
5000-9999 DWT
10000-19999 DWT
20000-59999 DWT
Oil Tanker
60000-79999 DWT
80000-119999 DWT
120000-199999 DWT
200000-+ DWT
0-999 DWT
Other Liquids Tanker
1000-+ DWT
0-299 GT
300-999 GT
Ferry (Passenger Only)
1000-1999 GT
2000-+ GT
0-1999 GT
2000-9999 GT
10000-59999 GT
Cruise
60000-99999 GT
100000-149999 GT
150000-+ GT
0-1999 GT
Ferry (Roll On/Off and Passenger)
2000-4999 GT
5000-9999 GT
10000-19999 GT
20000-+ GT
0-1999 DWT
2000-5999 DWT
Refrigerated Cargo
6000-9999 DWT
10000-+ DWT
0-4999 DWT
5000-9999 DWT
Roll On/Off
10000-14999 DWT
15000-+ DWT
0-29999 GT
Vehicle Carrier 30000-49999 GT
50000-+ GT
APPENDIX 2: VESSEL KINDS AND TYPES
Vessel kind Vessel type

Aggregates Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier (with Vehicle Decks)
Bulk Carrier, Laker Only
Bulk Carrier, Self-discharging
Bulk Carrier, Self-discharging, Laker
Bulk/Caustic Soda Carrier (CABU)
Bulk/Oil Carrier (OBO)
Cement Carrier Bulk Carrier
Limestone Carrier
Ore Carrier
Ore/Oil Carrier
Powder Carrier
Refined Sugar Carrier
Stone Carrier
Urea Carrier
Wood Chips Carrier
Bulk/Sulphuric Acid Carrier
Chemical Tanker
Chemical Tanker, Inland Waterways

Chemical Tanker
Chemical/Products Tanker
Chemical/Products Tanker, Inland Waterways
CNG Tanker
Edible Oil Tanker
Glue Tanker
Latex Tanker
Molten Sulphur Tanker
Vegetable Oil Tanker
Wine Tanker
Beer Tanker
Container Ship (Fully Cellular)
Container Ship (Fully Cellular), Inland Waterways Container
Container Ship (Fully Cellular/Ro-Ro Facility)
Barge Carrier
Deck Cargo Ship
General Cargo Ship
General Cargo Ship (with Ro-Ro facility)
General Cargo Ship, Self-discharging
General Cargo, Inland Waterways
General Cargo/Passenger Ship
General Cargo/Passenger Ship, Inland Waterways General Cargo
General Cargo/Tanker
Heavy Load Carrier
Heavy Load Carrier, Semi-Submersible
Livestock Carrier
Munitions Carrier
Nuclear Fuel Carrier
Nuclear Fuel Carrier (with Ro-Ro facility)
Open Hatch Cargo Ship
Palletised Cargo Ship
Yacht Carrier, Semi-Submersible
CO2 Tanker
Combination Gas Tanker (LNG/LPG)
LNG Tanker
Liquified Gas Tanker
LPG Tanker
LPG Tanker, Inland Waterways
LPG/Chemical Tanker
Asphalt/Bitumen Tanker
Coal/Oil Mixture Tanker
Crude Oil Tanker
Crude/Oil Products Tanker

Oil Tanker
Oil Tanker, Inland Waterways
Products Tanker
Shuttle Tanker
Tanker (Unspecified)
Alcohol Tanker
Caprolactam Tanker
Effluent carrier
Fruit Juice Carrier, Refrigerated Other Liquids Tanker
Molasses Tanker
Water Tanker
Water Tanker, Inland Waterways
Passenger Ship Ferry (Passenger Only)
Passenger Ship, Inland Waterways
Cruise Ship, Inland Waterways

Cruise
Passenger/Cruise
Air Cushion Vehicle Passenger
Air Cushion Vehicle Passenger/Ro-Ro (Vehicles)
Passenger/Container Ship
Passenger/Landing Craft Ferry (Roll On/Off and

Passenger)
Passenger/Ro-Ro Ship (Vehicles)
Passenger/Ro-Ro Ship (Vehicles), Inland
Waterways
Passenger/Ro-Ro Ship (Vehicles/Rail)
Refrigerated Cargo Ship Refrigerated Cargo
Container/Ro-Ro Cargo Ship
Infantry Landing Craft
Landing Craft
Landing Ship (Dock Type) Roll On/Off
Rail Vehicles Carrier
Ro-Ro Cargo Ship
Ro-Ro Cargo Ship, Inland Waterways
Car Park
Vehicle Carrier
Vehicles Carrier
APPENDIX 3: ACRONYMS
1.5DS 1.5° C aligned scenario
CBM Cubic metre
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalents
DWT Deadweight tonnes
GHG Greenhouse gas
GLEC Global Logistics Emissions Council
GT Gross tonnes
IEA International Energy Agency
IMO International Maritime Organization
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LSP Logistics service provider
NZE Net-zero emissions
RCP Representative concentration pathway
RoPax Roll on/off and passenger
RoRo Roll on/off
SDA Sectoral Decarbonization Approach
SSP Shared socioeconomic pathway
TEU Twenty-foot equivalent unit
TTW Tank-to-wake
B2DS Well below 2° C aligned scenario
WTT Well-to-tank
WTW Well-to-wake

SBTi Maritime Guidance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SBTi Maritime Guidance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SBTi Maritime Guidance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCIENCE BASED

TARGET SETTING FOR

TWG member organizations:

Dr Jean-Marc Bonello – Principal consultant, UMAS

About this Guidance

• A near-term SBT has a timeframe of 5-10 years.

The Sectoral Decarbonization Approach

The Maritime Transport Sector

Carbon Budget and Emissions Scenarios

Defining a 1.5°C aligned carbon budget

Developing a logistic trajectory

Adjusting for Well-To-Tank emissions

Fossil fuels Biomass Renewable Fossil fuels w/CCS

Defining a Well Below 2°C aligned carbon budget

Emission Trajectories for Maritime Transport

IEA ETP 2017 B2DS -10% -23% -36%

IPCC 1.5DS -49% -75% -100%

IEA NZE 2050 -12% -56% -85%

IPCC 1.5DS Logistic -36% -96% -100%

IMO 2050 -16% -32% -48%

Differences with industry climate goals

Bulker Tanker Container Other unitized Passenger Miscellaneous

Sector Carbon Intensity Pathways

IEA ETP 2017 B2DS -31% -52% -66%

IPCC 1.5DS -61% -84% -100%

IEA NZE 2050 -32% -73% -92%

IPCC 1.5DS Logistic -51% -98% -100%

IMO 2050 -35% -58% -73%

Table 2: Required carbon intensity reduction rate (relative to 2020 baseline)

Overview of the Target Setting Tool

WTW base year GHG Base year activity

Cargo shippers / Passenger Scope 3 category 5 or 6 tonne-nautical mile

Topic Criteria Description

All companies setting near-term science-based

Companies using this guidance to set near-term

Considerations for biogenic based fuels

Interaction with other sector decarbonization initiatives

Usability limitations arising from the SBTi Fossil Fuel Policy

User Inputs for the SBTi Maritime Tool

5. Ferry Passenger Only

6. Ferry Roll-On/Off and Passenger

8. Liquefied Gas Tanker

10. Other Liquids Tanker

11. Refrigerated Bulk Carrier

12. Roll On/Roll Off (RoRo)

13. Vehicle Carrier

Vessel size category

Base year Well-to-Wake emissions

Transport activity for vessel owners and operators: Freight

For example, consider these five fictitious voyage legs:

Distance sailed – Cargo carried

1 1,000 200,000 200,000,000

2 500 300,000 150,000,000

3 1,800 250,000 450,000,000

4 2,000 325,000 650,000,000

5 700 180,000 126,000,000

TOTAL 6,000 1,255,000 1,576,000,000

Based on the voyage profile described here:

▪ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 1,576,000,000 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑛𝑚

▪ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑆𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 × 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 = 7,530,000,000 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑛𝑚