Against a background of geopolitical theatre, MEPC 83 opts for rule-making

The 83rd session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 83) delivered a broad sweep of environmental agreements – from new plastic pollution measures to a fuel intensity standard for greenhouse gas emissions and progress on underwater-radiated noise.

But if one conclusion united industry associations, it was this: cohesion requires transparency.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) captured the prevailing sentiment succinctly, “The regulatory direction has been established, but the integrity of implementation will depend on whether IMO reaffirms its commitment to inclusive rule-making.”

It is a statement born of frustration at a process that, for many, increasingly risks technical decisions being made without technical input. Nowhere was this concern more pointed than in the adoption of the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework.

The measures, due to enter into force in 2028, introduce well-to-wake fuel intensity standards and a pricing mechanism for greenhouse gas emissions. While few dispute the necessity of decarbonisation, the way in which the regulations were agreed – by vote, and not consensus – has triggered widespread disquiet.

Intertanko managing director, Tim Wilkins, remarked, “non-governmental organisations, including Intertanko, were excluded from much of the ‘closed-door’ discussions on the emissions-reduction trajectories.”

He warned that by disregarding industry analysis, IMO risks enacting rules that are technically flawed or operationally impractical. The association’s senior technical manager, KC Wong, added the work ahead is extensive and complex, and must include the industry to be credible.

The atmosphere at the IMO building during the week of MEPC 83 was noticeably driven by a sense that a deal had to be done. The pressure was amplified by the strange geopolitical backdrop of US President Trump’s renewed tariff threats and unpredictability.

Delegates privately acknowledged that the optics of inaction were untenable. Many felt they had to be seen to be taking positive steps and delivering agreements – otherwise, as one delegate put it, “who knows what might happen next.”

That urgency was evident not only in climate discussions but also in other environmental areas.

In the field of marine plastic litter, MEPC 83 approved the 2025 Action Plan, including steps toward mandatory regulation for the carriage of plastic pellets. ICS welcomed the development, while BIMCO emphasised the need for operational clarity and enforcement consistency.

Progress on underwater-radiated noise (URN) was more cautious. MEPC 83 agreed to an experience-building phase to evaluate the revised URN guidelines.

BIMCO and ICS both supported this approach, underlining the need to balance environmental targets with operational viability. But data collection is not the same as regulation.

The Ballastwater Equipment Manufacturers’ Association (BEMA), responding to new type-approval requirements, called for clearer definitions and earlier engagement with technical experts.

IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez summarised MEPC by saying, “This is not about winners and losers. This is about compromise, collaboration and cohesion.”

Yet cohesion without transparency risks adding to the theatre that is becoming global trade. Without technical openness, the trust underpinning effective regulation will quickly dissolve.