The CII review and the maintenance decisions within your control

Where the review stands

IMO states that the first phase of its review of the short term greenhouse gas reduction measure has been completed, and that the second phase runs from spring 2026 to spring 2028. EEXI addresses technical energy efficiency, while CII assesses annual operational carbon intensity. The review process should not be treated as an automatic suspension of existing requirements.

MSACHKL perspective

The operational team should separate the regulatory calculation from the maintenance decisions it can act on. A vessel’s rating is influenced by its operating profile, and an individual repair should not be marketed as a guaranteed rating improvement.

Focus on useful records

Equipment condition, service history, measurement reliability and post maintenance operating data help managers understand what changed. When a component is repaired or replaced, preserve the specification, the reason for intervention and the agreed service records.

Plan rather than react

Use planned maintenance windows to review machinery performance and recurring faults. Compare repair and replacement options against the installation requirements and available time. A technical decision is stronger when its intended benefit and the method of checking that benefit are clear.

Distinguish the rating from the maintenance programme

CII is an operational indicator. A maintenance programme is a set of decisions about equipment condition, reliability and the work needed to keep the vessel operating. They can inform each other, but they are not interchangeable. Use the rating as one input alongside fault history, inspection findings and the vessel’s intended employment.

For an individual repair proposal, state the technical problem first. If the proposal also aims to improve performance, define the expected effect and what operating data would be needed to assess it. Avoid treating a component change as an automatic improvement in the annual rating.

Create a record that survives a change of personnel

A service record should explain why the work was done, which equipment and configuration it concerned and what was checked on completion. This makes later comparisons more useful when the superintendent, vessel staff or service provider changes. A photograph without a clear equipment reference is less useful than a documented intervention.

For recurring machinery faults, compare the previous work scope with the new symptoms. Review whether the original cause was established, whether the operating conditions have changed and whether the proposed remedy addresses the actual application. This provides a stronger foundation for repair or replacement decisions.

Evaluate the operational window as well as the equipment

A suitable intervention can still be poorly timed. Review access, material lead time, attendance availability and the checks needed before the equipment returns to use. If work is deferred, record the operational implications and the planned opportunity to complete it.

MSACHKL’s practical view is to connect the maintenance action with the vessel schedule and the information needed for review. That gives the manager a clear scope to approve, rather than an equipment quotation surrounded by untested assumptions about future performance.