IMO Delays Net Zero Framework Vote

The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) met in London October 14–17 with the primary purpose of voting on the group’s Net Zero Framework (NZF), presented to the committee for review in June. The framework is a set of directives aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from maritime vessels more than 5,000 gross tons.

On the one hand, the new framework would only apply to international, ocean-going vessels. Language within the NZF excludes vessels “solely engaged in voyages within waters subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the State (country),” including the inland waterways of the United States.

But that’s not the full story. The framework also states that “each party should ensure, by the adoption of appropriate measures, that such ships act in a manner consistent with the requirements of [the framework], so far as is reasonable and practicable.”

The downstream intent of the framework, then, which is to create new and varied fuels, multiple new bunkering, handling and transfer requirements and appropriate safeguards for transport and storage, doesn’t stop at coastal ports. To the extent that new fuels and port-side systems prove workable, the market for those services could move inland, although likely without the IMO-related fees and reporting system for international ships.

When the October 14–17 “extraordinary” MEPC meeting was scheduled, there was nothing particularly noteworthy on the agenda. It was just an “extra” meeting outside of MEPC’s usual schedule.

However, the unexpected outcome of the meeting proved quite extraordinary.

MEPC was widely expected to endorse the NZF, and a vote in favor of the framework would have started the development of an extensive and complicated set of rules covering alternative fuels, ship registrations, record keeping, enforcement, payments and the administration of a new worldwide fund to receive and disburse those payments. Procedurally, the IMO’s 176 member states (countries) would have singularly enforced the regulatory components within the framework.

A vote to approve the framework, though, did not happen. Instead, the committee voted to delay its decision on the framework for one year. Many supporters blamed behind-the-scenes efforts by the United States and Saudi Arabia. However, comments from delegates presented during lengthy open-floor sessions revealed broad opposition to and concerns about the framework.

When the MEPC convened for its last session on October 17, the committee voted 57 to 49 (not including abstentions and absent delegates) to “adjourn the extraordinary session for one year.”

On the one hand, the delay could undercut companies that have already made decisions and investments to move to “green” fuels. For companies and countries opposed to the framework—like the United States—the delay offers an opportunity to work to strengthen opposition. Beyond that, the legality for IMO to levee a carbon tax is in question.

Vocal U.S. Opposition

The night before MEPC’s vote to delay adoption of the framework, President Donald Trump posted on social media that he was “outraged that the International Maritime Organization is voting in London this week to pass a global carbon tax. The United States will not stand for this global green new scam tax on shipping.”

Prior to the meeting, the United States’ opposition was well known. The State Department, along with other Cabinet-level agencies, criticized the NZF many times, starting at least in August, and during the MEPC meeting. On October 15, in a statement posted on X, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated the administration’s concerns that the United Nations was attempting to pass the first global carbon tax that would result in increased energy, food and fuel costs. Rubio stated the United States’ vote “will be a hard no” and asked other nations to stand alongside the United States “in defense of our citizens and sovereignty.”

Rubio’s post on X also referenced an October 14 Wall Street Journal editorial titled “The United Nations Is About to Tax You.” Regarding the new framework fund, which would be financed by carbon fees, the Wall Street Journal opined that “if you think handouts to non-democratic countries for vaguely defined ‘climate’ purposes will be administered scrupulously in the public interest, we’ve got a carbon-neutral barge to sell you.”

As drafted, the framework would set two main demands.

First, it would establish a global fuel standard for ships more than 5,000 gross tons to gradually reduce greenhouse gas emissions for each unit of energy used, across a fuel’s life cycle. Second, it would establish a pricing mechanism—or fee—linked to emissions “to encourage the industry to lower emissions to comply with the global fuel standard.” The fee would start in 2028 at $100 per ton of carbon emitted. As proposed, that rate would increase in 2030 to $380 per ton, with the possibility of further review and rate hikes.

At just 12 pages, the Net Zero Framework is one chapter within the United Nations’ entire 125-page maritime pollution (MARPOL) document titled the “International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.”

Many MEPC delegates questioned whether support for the framework would automatically mean support for future developments. The NZF draft text presents broad ideas, but many of those ideas include the footnote, “Refer to guidelines to be developed by the organization.” The framework contains 28 similar footnotes, and some of those reference existing rules “that may be amended.”

“Equity” among nations, particularly small and developing nations, is another concern raised by opponents and acknowledged within the draft text itself. The draft directs “the committee” to address “disproportionately negative impacts of this chapter on food security” with “particular attention paid to countries exposed to food insecurity.”

MEPC delegates from smaller or developing countries expressed concern about being left behind due to their inability to afford compliance with the framework’s demands. They also worry that the NZF would increase transport costs so much that they would be unable to afford the cost of importing food and medical supplies.

Efforts To Stay On Track

During a news conference on Tuesday, October 14, after the MEPC’s opening session, one of the first questions for IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez referred to opposition from the United States. In reply, Dominguez said he would not address issues regarding an individual country.

“I’m working with all the countries,” he said, adding that his role is “to assist the process. Every country has the right to express their opinion, and we are listening to all the points of view.”

During his closing remarks October 17, Dominguez asked delegates to continue to be proactive.

“Let’s all take this moment to learn from this [and] come back fresh in one year ready to negotiate and take the next steps needed to address the goals which were set in the 2023 GHG strategy that you all agreed to,” Dominguez said. “As we come to an end, I ask you for one favor. Let’s not celebrate. There are concerns we need to address. Let’s work with each other.”

Joe Kramek, president and CEO of the World Shipping Council (WSC), in response to questions via email, called the framework “a serious, effective plan that gives countries and industry a clear path to decarbonize shipping, the result of years of careful discussions. The agreement may not give all parties exactly what they desire, but that was never the objective. The objective is to decarbonize global ocean supply chains by 2050, in a way that is as fair and cost-effective as possible for the world’s nations.”

Kramek added that “the IMO proposal is the only framework that makes [the objective] possible. It applies fairly and globally across the sector, sets clear targets and backs them up with a financial measure that puts shipping on track to reach net zero around 2050.”

But the assertion of a clear, equitable and workable path forward for the NZF is at the heart of the controversy. The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), in a report titled “Vision Meets Reality,” offered a much more cautious conclusion.

“Shipping is not yet aligned with the IMO trajectory,” ABS stated in the report. “Emissions remain above the 2008 baseline, compliance costs are compounding, and the signals shaping investment—regulation, fuel pricing, penalties, availability, scalability—are moving at different speeds. The risk is clear: the industry could end up monetizing carbon without actually delivering decarbonization.”

Reflecting those concerns, MEPC decided that a closer look at the framework—and a 12-month delay—was the best path forward.