Politics over pragmatism: how governments are losing the plot on shipping decarbonisation

The decision at the recent Extraordinary Session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to postpone the adoption of the so-called Net Zero Framework (NZF) by a full year is not a sign of the industry dragging its feet – it is a reminder that political manoeuvring still trumps progress.

The NZF, designed to give legal force to IMO’s “net-zero by or around 2050” goal, was on track: in April 2025, 63 states voted for adoption in principle. By October, the vote was expected to turn that agreement into binding text. Instead, procedural disputes and geo-strategic posturing derailed the process.

The industry’s position has been consistent. Owners are ordering dual-fuel and methanol-ready tonnage, ports are building infrastructure for low-carbon fuels, and cargo interests increasingly treat decarbonisation as non-negotiable. What’s missing is regulatory certainty – and that’s exactly what the NZF was meant to deliver.

The plan would have introduced fees for non-compliance with tightening carbon-intensity targets, with compliant ships rewarded and surpluses tradable. Revenues could have reached up to US$15Bn annually by 2030.

But the path toward adoption veered off course. The trigger was a dispute over the procedural rules behind IMO law-making. Since 1973, amendments to the Marpol Convention – the core environmental treaty for shipping – have entered into force through ’tacit acceptance’, meaning they take effect automatically unless a threshold of objections is reached. During the October session, however, the United States – backed by Saudi Arabia and others – pushed for ’explicit acceptance,’ a far more cumbersome process that would require active ratification by each state and could delay or block the framework indefinitely.

As the week unfolded, procedural wrangling turned into geopolitical theatre. The US reportedly threatened tariffs, port access restrictions, or visa limits for officials from states backing the NZF. Under pressure, many large flag and tonnage states either abstained, changed their positions, or withdrew support. The motion to delay passed with 57 in favour, 49 against, and 21 abstentions.

That vote matters. The NZF is not a minor tweak to existing IMO rules but a far-reaching package that would redefine how ships use and report fuels while introducing an economic mechanism – effectively a global shipping climate fund. Without adoption, the original 2027 entry-into-force target is now uncertain, possibly slipping toward the next decade.

IMO has become a stage for competing agendas. The EU presses ahead with its Emissions Trading System and FuelEU Maritime – measures that accelerate regional action but undermine faith in global regulation. For developing nations and petro-states, Brussels’ unilateralism offers a convenient excuse: why agree to a global carbon price when Europe is already imposing its own?

Across the Atlantic, the US and Saudi Arabia have played their own part in the stalemate. Washington’s hesitation is increasingly driven by domestic politics, with a revived Trumpist narrative eroding support for climate multilateralism. That shift is already complicating the EU’s broader COP30 strategy – and it is seeping into IMO. Riyadh, meanwhile, continues to defend its petro-economic position by slowing any attempt to put a meaningful price on carbon.

Caught in the middle is shipping – the world’s most globalised industry, dependent on global rules, now watching those rules fragment. Regional carbon regimes and national carve-outs will not deliver decarbonisation; they will only create a two-tier system, with compliant fleets in wealthy jurisdictions and carbon-heavy fleets everywhere else. The NZF is a structural package that would reshape fuel use, reporting and the economic backbone of climate policy in shipping. Losing momentum now risks losing the framework altogether.