Asia Pacific Maritime (APM) 2026 will take place between 25 – 27 March 2026 at Marina Bay Sands, Singapore. Toby Stephens, Head of Shipping, Asia, HFW, speaks with Manifold Times prior to his session: “Panel Discussion: Shipping Insurance in an Age of New Risk” on 27 March, 11.20am to 12.10pm.

MT: Green-fuel contracts and charterparties now involve new types of operational and safety risk. How should owners and charterers allocate responsibilities for issues like fuel quality, bunkering delays, or regulatory non-compliance?

The move towards green fuels has changed the risk landscape, so allocation of responsibility needs to be addressed more explicitly in charterparties. In terms of fuel quality, owners will usually retain responsibility for the vessel itself, ensuring that engines, fuel systems and safety arrangements are compatible with the nominated fuel, that crew are properly trained, and that reasonable onboard testing and monitoring is carried out during bunkering. Charterers, by contrast, are typically better placed to manage supply risk and should warrant that the fuel supplied meets the agreed contractual and regulatory specifications, with appropriate certification and traceability. Given the novelty and technical sensitivity of fuels such as methanol or ammonia, it is increasingly important for parties to agree on upfront procedures for sampling, testing and dispute resolution, so that any quality concerns can be addressed without unnecessary delay or operational disruption.

Similar principles apply to bunkering delays and regulatory non‑compliance – liability for delays will still largely follow the charterparty’s terms, but the risk is becoming more pronounced as uptake outpaces infrastructure. While around half of global newbuild tonnage is now alternative‑fuel capable,[1] there are still only relatively few ports worldwide with methanol bunkering available or planned, which makes availability‑driven delays a real commercial issue. On compliance, owners carry the operational burden of complying with evolving international and regional regimes such as the IGF Code, port state requirements and emissions reporting under regimes such as the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime. Meanwhile, charterers should clearly define any emissions or sustainability criteria linked to the fuel they nominate. Ultimately, well‑drafted clauses that clearly allocate liability for delays, fines or penalties arising from fuel or regulatory issues are essential, as green fuels move from pilot projects into mainstream commercial use.

MT: As environmental claims and disputes increase, do you expect to see more litigation around emissions reporting, data accuracy, and ‘greenwashing’ in chartering or commercial arrangements?

In short, yes. As decarbonisation requirements tighten, we are likely to see a marked increase in disputes and regulatory scrutiny around emissions reporting, data accuracy and environmental claims in shipping contracts. Environmental representations are no longer peripheral – they are increasingly embedded in charterparties, voyage planning and financing arrangements, particularly through regimes such as the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime. That creates obvious friction where parties try to optimise routes or reporting to reduce their regulatory exposure, or where owners and charterers take different views on responsibility for allowances, penalties or compliance failures. As regulators become more adept at identifying practices such as artificial port calls or other forms of regulatory avoidance, disputes are likely to arise over whether emissions have been reported correctly and who ultimately bears the financial consequences.

At the same time, the risk of litigation linked to greenwashing and inaccurate emissions claims is quickly growing. Courts and regulators are already showing a willingness to challenge misleading environmental statements across other sectors, and there is no reason to think shipping will be treated differently. By way of example, the Grantham Research Institute at the LSE identified 43 climate‑washing cases globally between 2016 and 2021, followed by a further 77 cases filed between 2021 and 2023, illustrating how rapidly enforcement is accelerating.[2] As charterparties increasingly include ESG‑linked clauses on emissions performance, fuel choice or efficiency targets, we can expect more private law disputes as well, particularly where data sources diverge or promised environmental outcomes are not achieved. The challenge for the industry will be that ESG‑related obligations are often difficult to define and even harder to quantify in loss terms, which makes careful drafting and allocation of risk more important than ever.

MT: Digitalisation is creating new contractual risks, particularly around cybersecurity and system failures. What should vessel operators consider when negotiating agreements with digital service providers?

Digitalisation is now so embedded in vessel operations that contracts with digital service providers need to be treated as safety‑critical. Service providers’ obligations should be clearly defined, including minimum security standards, patching and monitoring responsibilities, access controls, and incident notification requirements. Liability and indemnity provisions should expressly cover cyber incidents or system failures caused by the provider’s systems, rather than relying on generic exclusions. Where BIMCO’s Cyber Security Clause 2019 is incorporated, parties should be cautious about default liability allocations and ensure these are refined to reflect who actually controls and manages the relevant systems.

Beyond cybersecurity, operators should focus on resilience, compliance and control. Contracts should require adherence to recognised standards such as ISO 27001, NIST or the IMO cyber risk management guidelines, which help anchor liability and reduce uncertainty when failures occur. Clear incident response procedures are essential, including defined response times and cooperation obligations, as vague wording is often commercially unworkable during a live incident. Data ownership is another increasingly contentious area: operators should ensure they retain access to, and control over, operational and performance data, particularly on termination, to avoid being locked out of critical information needed for compliance or vessel management. Finally, where contracts interface with carriage obligations, operators should be mindful of potential conflicts with non‑delegable duties under regimes such as the Hague‑Visby Rules, and avoid including provisions that may ultimately prove to be unenforceable.

[1] Clarksons. OVER HALF OF VESSEL ORDERBOOK CAN USE ALTERNATIVE FUEL, SAYS CLARKSONS – Clean Shipping International

[2] Grantham Research Institute – Climate‑washing litigation. New figures show rise in ‘climate-washing’ litigation against companies – Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

Photo credit: HFW
Published: 18 March, 2026