Shanghai has been the world’s busiest container port for 16 consecutive years. Now it is aiming higher: to turn its physical scale into influence over the certification, trading, and pricing of green shipping fuels.

At the end of June, Shanghai announced three interlocking initiatives covering certification, trading, and bunkering. Together, they represent an attempt to build not merely the infrastructure for supplying cleaner fuels, but an entire market ecosystem around them.

This matters greatly to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The global maritime transition is gathering momentum even as the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) pathway toward decarbonization by 2050 remains contested.

China is pushing ahead with green methanol, dual-fuel ships, port electrification, and green shipping corridors. Shanghai’s initiative signals the Chinese mainland is moving beyond handling ships and cargoes to building markets and shaping rules.

So where does Hong Kong fit in?

Shanghai’s strategy in bunkering has gone the furthest. It already supplies liquefied natural gas (LNG) and green methanol to ships. In the first half of 2026, the port supplied 388,000 cubic meters of LNG and 51,000 tons of green methanol. It is adding bunkering vessels and linking production in Jilin with storage in Dalian and consumption in Shanghai.

The second pillar is trading. The Shanghai Shipping Exchange, Shanghai Environment and Energy Exchange, and a China Energy Investment Corp subsidiary are establishing a green shipping fuel platform covering certification, registration, trading, settlement, and the cancelation of fuel attributes.

Shanghai hopes sufficient volume will generate a “Shanghai price” and a “Shanghai index”. It wants not only to supply fuel, but to influence how green shipping fuels are valued.

The third pillar is certification. Shanghai has launched a center for a Chinese certification system for green marine fuels.

Not every methanol molecule, or supposedly green fuel, is equally green: Emissions depend on how it was produced, what energy was used, and how it was transported. Certification gives environmental claims commercial value. A shipowner may pay more for lower-emission fuel, but only if its origin and lifecycle emissions can be credibly demonstrated.

Trading remains more open still. This is where Hong Kong has a genuine opportunity. Hong Kong does not have to replicate what others are doing. Its strongest role lies in connecting mainland fuel production and certification with international capital, shipowners and commercial practice

The IMO has guidelines for assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity of marine fuels, from production through use on board ship.

Shanghai’s system will have commercial value when shipowners, regulators, and overseas markets accept its certificates under emerging international rules.

The mainland authorities are likely to promote this as the national certification system, and Shanghai is positioning itself as China’s principal center for translating national green fuel standards into internationally recognized commercial practice.

But this does not mean every role has been allocated and secured, or that other ports must follow suit.

Bunkering must occur wherever ships need fuel. Hong Kong and other ports will develop facilities according to demand and geography. Certification requires international standards and independent verification, which will take time to develop even with Beijing’s backing.

Trading remains more open still. This is where Hong Kong has a genuine opportunity. Hong Kong does not have to replicate what others are doing. Its strongest role lies in connecting mainland fuel production and certification with international capital, shipowners and commercial practice.

Hong Kong already possesses much of the necessary “soft infrastructure”: commodity and maritime finance, insurance, ship leasing and management, common law contracts, arbitration, currency and risk management services, and experience with international shipowners.

It also has an unusual institutional position. China participates in the IMO as a member state, while the HKSAR has been an associate member since 1967. Hong Kong operates a major international ship register and remains home to shipowners, managers, charterers, insurers, lawyers, and financiers serving global markets.

These attributes could be assembled around green fuels.

Hong Kong businesses could invest in and finance mainland production and bunkering infrastructure. Banks and investors could structure long-term offtake agreements between producers and shipowners.

Traders could manage price and currency risks; insurers could cover credit, performance and supply-chain risks; and lawyers and arbitrators could develop trusted contracts and resolve disputes.

Hong Kong could also test whether mainland certification systems are interoperable with IMO methodologies and those used overseas. Hong Kong is not starting from zero. Like Shanghai, it has completed green methanol bunkering operations and introduced port dues concessions to attract vessels using greener fuels.

It has also begun working with partner ports to develop green shipping corridors. The next step is to define what Hong Kong can contribute to green fuel supply, emissions verification, finance or other commercial services and use them to demonstrate its leadership capabilities.

Hong Kong companies are involved in mainland methanol production and supply, while the SAR government wants the city to become a green maritime fuel bunkering and trading center.

Yet ambition is not a market. The pieces must be connected.

Nor is the international field empty. Singapore is licensing methanol bunkering suppliers and developing lifecycle carbon accounting and digital bunkering. Rotterdam is building green fuel supply chains linked to European industry.

Hong Kong has an opening — but not unlimited time.

The consultation on Hong Kong’s first five-year plan is therefore timely. It already calls for expanded green-fuel bunkering and stronger maritime services. The final plan should define the market that Hong Kong intends to build, assign responsibility for delivery and coordinate maritime, financial, trade, and environmental policy. It should unite fuel producers, shipowners, traders, banks, insurers, classification societies, certification bodies, lawyers, and technology providers. The goal is not just another trading platform, but the financing, contracting, verification and risk management chain required for green fuel transactions.

Shanghai’s initiative is neither a threat to resist nor a model to copy. It signals that the green maritime economy is being built now.

The government must work closely with industry, across more fronts and with greater urgency, to build a market that responds to global developments, aligns with the central government’s evolving policy and cooperates with other ports, while carving out a distinctive role for Hong Kong before Shanghai, Singapore or another center does.

The first five-year plan is the moment to begin.

The author is chief development strategist of the Institute for the Environment, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.