Q&A: Why we need to improve emissions monitoring

Photo Credit: SeaARCTOS

In this Q&A, Fredrik Fuglesang, CEO of maritime technology company SeaARCTOS, answers common questions he is asked about direct emissions monitoring, current fuel testing shortcomings, and global sulfur cap compliance.

As global and regional shipping emissions regulations are introduced, effective enforcement remains a key challenge. Implementation and compliance can be complex and costly, requiring clear, reliable data to assess outcomes. Real-time maritime emissions monitoring technologies, such as ARCTOS-1, provide data that can help evaluate whether regulations are achieving their intended impact.

Marine Log (ML): Why does maritime emissions monitoring need a new approach?

Fredrik Fuglesang (FF): Compliance needs to be made easier, faster and more transparent without adding major operational costs or delays to anyone involved. Port authorities and Flag States, in particular, face much of the administrative burden and cost associated with enforcing emissions regulations. Direct, real-time and autonomous emissions monitoring and reporting technology can put the responsibility on shipowners and operators without giving them significant extra workload.

More broadly, cargo owners, funders and class societies also need more transparent and dependable emissions data to make informed decisions about which owners and ships to support. Shipowners and operators themselves, meanwhile, benefit as this technology strengthens reporting, supports auditing processes and gives clear evidence of compliance.

ML: What maritime emissions need to be monitored?

FF: It is important to monitor Carbon dioxide (CO₂), Methane (CH₄), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM) like black carbon (soot) and Sulfur Oxides (SOx), mainly comprised of sulphur dioxide (SO₂). While current regulations focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly CO₂ and increasingly methane, local pollution of SOx, NOx and PM must not be overlooked.

ML: Why is it important to monitor methane emissions? 

FF: Methane is particularly noteworthy as it has a higher global warming potential than CO₂ and more LNG-fueled ships are entering operation, so methane slip from their engines must be accurately measured. These could be over or under estimated, and the reality is that regulators do not know. Some operators of LNG (methane) duel fuel ships have reduced or eliminated methane slip, but can be billed for “phantom emissions” that don’t exist, which leaves no commercial incentive to invest in slip reduction.

ML: Why is it important to monitor local pollution?

FF: Local emissions of SOx, NOx and PM have a significant impact on people’s health. Seafarers, shoreside crew, passengers, and residents near ports are particularly impacted. According to the World Health Organization, these pollutants can exacerbate existing conditions like asthma, cause respiratory problems with long-term exposure linked to lung cancer, and potentially increase the risk of heart disease and stroke.

ML: What are the current sulfur emissions regulations?

FF: Sulfur is not a problem that shipping can wish away. 2020 saw the initiation of the reduction of the global sulfur limit in marine fuel to 0.5% (from 3.5%), requiring ships outside Emission Control Areas (ECAs) to use cleaner, low-sulfur fuel or scrubbers, while existing ECAs, and new ones such as the Mediterranean (May 1st, 2025), are capped at a stricter 0.1% limit. The policy is solid; it is the enforcement mechanisms that needs work.

ML: What is wrong with current fuel sulfur level testing?  

FF: A critical challenge that needs to be addressed is the current testing process and procedure. Currently, to test for sulfur levels, a fuel sample needs to be taken by a surveyor, which is then sent to an independent lab. This process, which in total may cost several thousand dollars, can take 10 days to complete.

The reality is that, if the sample is found to be non-compliant, the vessel has long since left the port where the sample was taken. Invariably, ports are not in the business of arresting ships in other people’s ports, meaning that there is no recourse. In real terms, this means there is no incentive for port authorities or Flag States to invest in a wide-ranging testing programme.

ML: What other challenges to ships and ports face?

FF: Other challenges to improved testing and compliance include managing vast amounts of real-time data and generating verifiable, audit-ready documentation, which can be complex, requiring a robust data management system, while continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) currently can’t always provide accurate and consistent data in harsh marine environments.

ML: What technology can help with enforcing emissions limits?

FF: SeaARCTOS’ system, for example, is shoe-box-sized and fitted to the exhaust stack in under an hour. It then provides direct, real-time maritime emissions monitoring. The system captures exhaust emissions data from a vessel’s funnel and transmits it securely to a cloud platform, giving shipowners, operators, port authorities, Flag States and other stakeholders timely, verifiable insight into emissions performance.

In conclusion, Shipping emissions rules only matter if they can be enforced. Right now, testing is too slow, too costly and too easy to avoid. Better real-time monitoring would give ports, regulators and ship operators clear evidence, cut the paperwork and make sure regulations actually achieve their targets.