# Review of the CII **URL:** \ **Category:** Decarbonization\ **Tags:** cii, regulations, decarbonisation\ **Created:** [February 13, 2025, 8:24am UTC](https://www.queseas.com/t/review-of-the-cii/1082 "2025-02-13T08:24:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![K.Theocharis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a3d4f5/32.png) [@K.Theocharis](https://www.queseas.com/u/K.Theocharis)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2025, 8:24am UTC](https://www.queseas.com/t/review-of-the-cii/1082/1 "2025-02-13T08:24:12Z")
Hello, yesterday the report of the Correspondence Group (CG) on the review of the CII was published and I would like to provide a short update. The report from the CG is not conclusive, as the final decision will depend on the approval of the MEPC, but it offers a strong indication of the likely outcome. First of all, I would like to remind that the review of the CII will be carried out on two phases, with Phase 1 concluding by 1st January 2026, and Phase 2 starting afterwards. Urgent matters will be considered in Phase 1 such as the Z reduction factors for the period of 2027-2030 and whether the CII is a robust energy efficiency indicator. Phase 2 will consider all other challenges and gaps identified in the framework. Noting the above, let’s see what was the outcome of the CG and in which topics discussion was focused. **Challenge #2** : _Z reduction factors for years 2027-2030_ Starting with the urgent topic of the Z reduction factors, delegations suggested several values, with a median annual increase of 3% (currently it is 2%), as you can find on the table below. | Reduction factors | Mean | Median | Extreme values | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 2027 | -13.7% | -14.0% | -11% to -17% | | 2028 | -16.6% | -17.0% | -12% to -23% | | 2029 | -19.5% | -20.0% | -13% to -30% | | 2030 | -22.5% | -23.0% | -14% to -38% | It was also stated that these rates might have to be revised in light of changes to the CII (such as a change of metric). For phase 1, the coordinators suggested to consider if adjustments should be made to the reduction factors and/or to the reference lines to compensate for exclusion of emissions from the introduction of correction factors and voyage adjustments. MEPC 83 is expected to agree on the reduction factors. **On the rest challenges and gaps identified** **Challenge #1** : _CII does not allow for robust individual ship-based assessment of operational energy efficiency performance_: Six recommendations identified, such as to strengthen the annual audit requirement, to change the current focus on E and D ships to continuous **incremental improvement** to all ships. Member States are invited to submit concrete proposals to future sessions for consideration in Phase 2. **Challenge #3** : _CII calculation might penalize idle time and port waiting time_: General support for metric change to be considered in Phase 2, considering only consumptions other than during anchorage/during port waiting/at berth e.t.c., recalculation of CII reference lines and dd vectors, identification of existing correction factors that could overlap, **further consideration on what other measures can address emissions removed from the scope of the revised CII**. **No support for a correction factor**. **Challenge #4** : _CII might penalize short voyages_: **No support for correction factor** , possible benefit **if metric changes (Challenge #3)**. **Challenge #5** : _CII might penalize cruise passenger ships_: **Several members supported metric change based on CLIA’s proposal (use cgHRS instead of cgDIST, cgHRS = ΣCO2/(GT x Hours))**. Work will continue at Phase 2. **Challenge #6** : _CII enforcement does not provide sufficient incentive for behavior change_: To be kept in abeyance until analysis of revised IMO DCS is completed. **Challenge #7** : _CII does not incentivize Just-in-Time (JIT) arrival_: To be kept in abeyance. **Challenge #8** : _Accessibility to IMO DCS_: Matter to be considered at ISWG-APEE 1 (prior to MEPC 83). **Challenge #9** : _CII might penalize self-unloading bulk carrier_: To be kept in abeyance. **Challenge #10** : _CII might penalize geared bulk carriers_: Will be considered under Challenge #3. **Challenge #11** : _CII might penalize ships operating in adverse weather_: To be kept in abeyance. **Challenge #12** : _CII might penalize ships using bow thrusters_: Will be considered under Challenge #3. **Challenge #13** : _CII might penalize ballast voyages_: To be kept in abeyance. **Challenge #14** : _CII might penalize ships equipped with inert gas generator_: To be kept in abeyance. **Challenge #15** : _CII might penalize ships carrying refrigerated cargo below deck_: To be kept in abeyance. **Challenge #16** : _CII might penalize steam driven LNG carriers_: To be kept in abeyance. **Challenge #17** : _CII might penalize ro-ro cargo and ro-ro passenger ships_: To be kept in abeyance. **Challenge #18** : _CII reference lines does not accurately reflect smaller LNG carriers_: To consider recalculation of the CII reference line in Phase 2. **Challenge #19** : _CII might overlap with MTM_: A proposal to change the nominator of the CII from gCO2 to MJ (energy based). To be considered in Phase 2. **Challenge #20** : _CII does not address lifecycle emissions_: To be considered along with Challenge #19. **Challenge #21** : _CII does not allow for pooling_: To be kept in abeyance. ---
**Author:** ![Stela.Spiraj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d07c76/32.png) [@Stela.Spiraj](https://www.queseas.com/u/Stela.Spiraj)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2025, 9:41am UTC](https://www.queseas.com/t/review-of-the-cii/1082/2 "2025-02-13T09:41:52Z")
Very interesting! Thank you for sharing K.Theocharis !