Alternative Fuels Are Outpacing Legal Frameworks: The Alarming Liability 'Blind Spot'

The shipping industry’s fuel transition is proceeding at a pace far outstripping the legal frameworks designed to manage its risks. This is the sharp assessment delivered by Erin Walton, a senior expert at the West of England P&I Club, in a recent analysis published on Splash.

While the industry has dedicated significant time and capital to assessing the technical and commercial viability of alternative fuels, the question of "Who is liable when an incident occurs?" has received far less attention.

A Shifting Risk Profile: From Oil Slicks to Toxic Clouds

For decades, pollution risk in shipping has been built upon a stable and understood threat profile: oil spills from fuel or cargo. Planning assumptions revolved around this specific risk, underpinned by globally established response procedures and international conventions on liability and compensation.

These frameworks provided clarity not only for regulators and responders but also for shipowners making commercial decisions with a clear understanding of their risk exposure.

However, that certainty no longer exists.

Alternative fuels behave very differently from conventional oil. In many cases, there will be no slick on the water to recover. Instead, a leak could generate a toxic, flammable, or explosive gas cloud, posing immediate risks to the crew, the port, and the surrounding population. Response priorities shift from environmental remediation to containment, detection, and ensuring human safety.

Legal Gaps and International Conventions

The core issue lies in the fact that current legal instruments are no longer fit for this new reality. Ms. Walton points out: “The problem is that the international pollution conventions the industry has relied on for decades are largely fuel-specific, predicated on the pollutant being a persistent hydrocarbon mineral oil.”

Consequently, most alternative fuels fall completely outside these frameworks. When that happens, the benefits of the convention system - such as strict liability, compulsory insurance, and the right of direct action against insurers - disappear. Compensation remains possible, but it becomes dependent on local law, with outcomes varying vastly across jurisdictions.

For shipowners, this creates a level of uncertainty that is difficult to price, insure, or manage contractually. For ports, regulators, and claimants, it risks causing delays and inconsistency precisely when clarity is needed most.

Lessons from Ammonia and the Past

Ammonia is a prime example of how this gap is manifesting. Its decarbonization potential is widely recognized, but so are its hazards. A leak may leave no visible pollution mark, but the consequences could be severe.

In Singapore, the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) has conducted extensive risk studies to develop ammonia bunkering standards. In Europe, the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) is also publishing technical studies. However, the industry has been in this situation before. Current international conventions (such as the CLC, Fund, and Bunker Conventions) were only developed after fragmented national approaches proved inadequate following major disasters, most notably the Torrey Canyon oil spill.

Ms. Walton emphasizes: “Today, the fuels may be different, but the lesson remains the same.”

Alternative fuels are already entering operation. As uptake increases, the probability of incidents testing existing frameworks will rise in tandem. Waiting for a major disaster to expose these deficiencies would be a costly mistake.

Conclusion: The "Blind Spot" Must Be Removed

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recognized the need to revisit how liability and compensation are applied in this context. That work must proceed at a rapid pace. In parallel, shipowners, charterers, and ports need to understand that fuel decisions are not just technical or environmental choices - they are liability decisions.

Concluding the article, Ms. Walton affirms a vital principle for the success of the green roadmap: “The energy transition will only succeed if it remains commercially viable, operationally safe, and legally insurable.”

Eliminating the liability "blind spot" surrounding alternative fuels is not a minor regulatory detail. It is a prerequisite for trust, investment, and long-term adoption.

See more:

• Maersk Reports Ocean Division Loss, Cuts 1,000 Jobs as Container 'Party' Ends
• NX China and SITC Launch Co-Branded Containers on Shanghai – Osaka Route
• SITC Increases Strong Profit and Market Share Growth in Intra-Asia Market
• Intra-Asia Freight Rates Continue to 'Bottom Out' Ahead of Lunar New Year
• Escalating US Tariffs: A Shock to African Airfreight and a Test for AfCFTA
• 2026 Global Logistics Market Outlook: 5 Key Trends by Transportation Mode
• WorldACD: Global Air Cargo Market Stabilizes Ahead of Lunar New Year
• Maersk Takes Over Two Panama Canal Gateway Ports Following Court Ruling
• Port of Savannah Wraps Up 2025 with Second-Highest Throughput in History
• International Shipping and Logistics Market Update Week 5/2026 | Phaata
• COSCO schedules: Vietnam - North America in Feb 2026
• SITC updates Vietnam-Intra Asia sailing schedules in Feb 2026
• COSCO updates Vietnam-North Europe sailing schedules in Feb 2026
• Port of Singapore 2025: Setting Double Records in Container Throughput and Bunkering

Source: Phaata.com (According to Splash247)

► Find Better Freight Rates & Logistics Service Providers!