A switch away from a proven approach by IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee has brought division to its door. The route ahead to decarbonise shipping needs very careful management
“The recent 2nd extraordinary session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) and the ensuing decision to delay adoption of new requirements on greenhouse gas (GHG) fuel intensity, in combination with a pricing and reward mechanism, represents a catastrophic event. If not handled well it could lead to the emasculation of an international organisation that has never really been political and has done critical work for safety, security and the environmental impact of the sector.”
So says an informed party who spoke to Port Strategy on condition of anonymity. He continues:
“The foundations for this catastrophe were not in the events of last week but earlier in the year. In April 2025 the MEPC broke with the proven precedent of keeping talking until everyone could be accommodated. MEPC’s precedence had been established because the regulation of international shipping is essential but complex. Shipping is not homogenous. There are many sectors and sub-sectors bound together through a complex relationship between ship owner, operators, managers and cargo owners.
“Now in the aftermath of the decision, the consequences of breaking precedence are savagely exposed, the vote to defer implementation of the Net Zero Framework is a disaster for shipping. One that can to a large extent be planted at the foot of Donald Trump, a man who knows little about shipping and probably cares less. Spare a thought, if precedence had been followed and the painful and slow diplomacy of IMO had been allowed to continue the recent catastrophe would not have happened.
“Those who wanted to move forward with the framework were clear their approach was right and action was needed now. Time was of the essence, we can’t wait. Examine those statements! Perhaps 2-3% of global emissions are from the shipping sector. If you are looking for somewhere to have a profound effect on emissions of carbon dioxide shipping should not be high on your target list. Some say, this misses the point. In 2040 shipping will be 40% of global emissions. They don’t say that 40% assumes all other emissions are mitigated by 90% to just 10% of their 1990 levels. The chances of that are remote, given that China, one of the world’s largest emitters, saw its emissions rise by between 5 and 6% in 2024. By some assessments China’s emissions grew by the entire emissions of the shipping sector in 2024.
OUTSTANDING DIFFERENCE?
“There is one outstanding difference between shipping and almost all other major sectors. Shipping has traditionally had a functioning international regulatory structure that has shown itself capable, over time, of improving safety, security and environmental standards. Not perfect, frustratingly slow, but functional. That outstanding difference, that shipping created, now seems to be a potential downfall. It provides an easy target for pressure groups, academics and politicians to attack most of an industry that can claim to have contributed more to global poverty reduction, through trade, than most others. High profile, easy to hit, good for global publicity, but virtually irrelevant to the war against emissions.
“What was so urgent? Was it a clear and obvious solution to decarbonising the shipping sector? Was it a solution which could be implemented in a direct and practical way? A solution that had the support of the main financiers of the sector, the ship owners? No way can these questions be answered in a positive manner. No!
“Most serious assessments of the net zero framework suggest it is not fit for purpose. Even supporters and cheerleaders for the vote have been heard to say the proposals, as drafted, would not achieve the objective. Some say that the central weakness is because they don’t go far enough. Others say that the amount of money to be charged is wrong. Some parties are far more critical, that the fuels, ships and ports could not be made ready.
POLITICAL FOOTBALL
“IMO has always been slow and worked on consensus. This result is not just a Trumpian nightmare it is the decision to go against the previous culture of IMO. A decision to be political - to throw away consensus. Thus, we are now in a situation where the IMO and its regulations have become a political football. IMO does vital work. It has created the way to resolve many complex regulatory issues. It is now at risk when it shouldn’t be.
“Many, and I think most people knew IMO’s net zero framework was unlikely to work as advertised and lead to rapid decarbonisation of the sector. Let us take responsibility, our general lack of honesty, the poor quality of the open debate (why did it take so long for some big ship owners to say it wasn’t going to work?) and an overall lack of clarity in the framework proposals did impact how this vote went. Also perhaps the media need to be more open and honest about what is happening at IMO and the net zero framework? Perhaps more factual reporting, benchmarked to practical operating and investing is required?
“There is considerable scope for sincere reflection on adopting a proven approach.”
