The question of who governs the oceans is increasingly a question of who can access the infrastructure, finance, and fuels that will define the next maritime economy. For decades, ocean governance has centred on rules of passage, resource rights, safety, and environmental protection. That agenda remains essential. But the transition to low- and zero-emission shipping is adding a new layer: whether all regions, including the Global South, can participate in the emerging sustainable maritime fuel economy, rather than merely adapting to rules and supply chains designed elsewhere.
Shipping is central to globalisation, yet its fuel system remains overwhelmingly fossil-based. The International Maritime Organization’s 2023 GHG Strategy set a clear direction: international shipping should reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions “by or around” 2050, with zero or near-zero GHG emission technologies, fuels, and energy sources representing at least 5 percent, striving for 10 percent, of shipping energy use by 2030. The International Energy Agency similarly highlights that low-emission fuels must scale rapidly in shipping, with biofuels and hydrogen-based fuels playing potential roles depending on policy support, infrastructure readiness, and vessel technology.
The challenge is no longer only technological. It is increasingly about delivery. Sustainable maritime fuels will matter only if they are available at the right ports, in the right quantities, at a manageable cost, with credible safety, certification, and lifecycle-emissions assurance. This is the core premise of many studies. For example, the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping has argued that ports will need to take practical first steps on fuel readiness, infrastructure sequencing, and stakeholder coordination; and the Lloyd’s Register Maritime Decarbonisation Hub’s Fuel Adoption Programme and its forthcoming report, Building the sustainable maritime fuel supply chain points out that the transition will depend on whether production, export logistics, bunkering infrastructure, and demand can be developed as a coherent system.
Concentration, Corridors, and New Fuel Geographies
Three findings are especially relevant for ocean governance. First, today’s bunkering system is highly concentrated. The Decarb Hub’s analysis estimates that the top 19 bunkering ports account for around half of global bunkering volumes. This concentration creates a powerful opportunity: early infrastructure in a small number of high-volume hubs can influence a large share of global shipping activity. But it also creates a governance risk: if sustainable fuel access is built only around incumbent hubs, the transition could reinforce existing asymmetries in maritime influence.
Second, many future sustainable fuel production locations may not be today’s dominant bunkering hubs. Fuel distribution ports can be identified based on proximity to production projects, scale, and export relevance. Most potential e-fuel distribution ports sit outside the current top-tier bunkering hierarchy. In practical terms, early market formation may depend on new trade-pair relationships: export gateways in regions with renewable resources and industrial land supplying major bunkering hubs where vessel demand is concentrated. For example, ports linked to green fuel production in India could, over time, support supply towards Singapore, while projects in North and West Africa could connect renewable-rich coastal areas to European demand centres. These examples are not forecasts, but they illustrate how future fuel corridors may differ from today's bunkering map. This matters for equity. Countries in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and parts of the Middle East may not all be major bunkering centres today, but some have strong potential to become sustainable fuel producers, exporters, and operate dual-role ports. Possible regional patterns may emerge and could create new maritime value chains, especially if investment, offtake agreements, and standards are designed inclusively.
Third, many sustainable fuel projects remain pre-final investment decision. Their bankability depends on coordinated development across production, storage, port infrastructure, vessel demand, and policy incentives. Long-term offtake agreements, blended finance, guarantees, and public–private risk-sharing can help move projects from announcement to execution. Without these mechanisms, the transition could stall in precisely the regions where sustainable fuel development could deliver the greatest development benefits. The issue is not simply whether capital exists, but whether it is structured to manage first-mover risk, support early demand aggregation, and build confidence across the fuel value chain.
Making Fuel Corridors Inclusive
A more equitable approach would treat sustainable maritime fuel infrastructure as part of ocean governance, not merely as an energy-sector investment. Ports in emerging economies should be assessed not only for immediate fuel volumes, but also for renewable potential, land suitability, shipping traffic, industrial integration, local air-quality benefits, development impact and social risk. The Port Explorer Tool offers one such approach. By screening ports across technical, economic, environmental, and delivery-risk criteria, it can identify “next-wave” locations that may be otherwise missed.
This has clear implications for the Global South. If sustainable maritime fuel corridors are designed as inclusive investment platforms, they can support industrial development, port modernisation, cleaner air, skills development, and more resilient trade connectivity. The benefits can be tangible: new fuel infrastructure can create demand for port services, engineering capability, safety training, and renewable-energy integration, while cleaner fuels can reduce local air pollutants around port cities. These outcomes will be shaped by governance choices made now: how standards are developed, how finance is mobilised, how local benefits are valued, and how opportunities for ports are included in early market formation.
Switching to sustainable maritime fuels is therefore not simply a compliance exercise. It is a test of whether climate action at sea can be aligned with fair access to opportunity on shore. The next phase of ocean governance should recognise fuel access as a strategic public-interest issue: essential for meeting climate goals, maintaining trade resilience, and enabling a more balanced maritime economy.
The oceans are governed not only through treaties and institutions, but through the infrastructures that determine who can move, trade, invest, and adapt. Sustainable maritime fuels will be one of those infrastructures. The task now is to build them in ways that are safe, bankable, and open to wider participation.
Note: This article was originally published at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) website on Jun 01, 2026.