{"id":60106614,"date":"2025-10-28T17:32:36","date_gmt":"2025-10-28T17:32:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/?p=60106614"},"modified":"2025-11-18T16:42:47","modified_gmt":"2025-11-18T16:42:47","slug":"how-countries-failed-to-steer-shipping-to-net-zero-and-where-they-go-next","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/ocean\/how-countries-failed-to-steer-shipping-to-net-zero-and-where-they-go-next\/","title":{"rendered":"How countries failed to steer shipping to net zero, and where they go next"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Negotiators from across the world met in London this month at the UN shipping agency’s headquarters to adopt landmark rules to reduce the sector\u2019s carbon emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though the rules had been agreed on in April, the meeting at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) ended with deep division and the plans delayed for at least a year. The week-long talks witnessed complaints of intimidation and some delegates brought to tears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delegates said the meeting turned into a political battleground, with the US issuing public threats to nations supporting curbs on emissions. Some nations backtracked on their support for tough regulations to make shipowners pay for high-emitting vessels, and instead supported Saudi Arabia\u2019s ultimately successful moves to delay the plans. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this was not just about rich fossil-fuel-producing countries scuppering curbs on oil use. Some developing nations voiced fears that the IMO’s plans would spike food prices for their citizens. They said they supported decarbonisation but had not been assured the money raised by the levy would ensure an equitable transition away from oil. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The shipping industry burns 350 million tonnes<\/a> of fuel oil every year as it moves over 80% of goods traded worldwide, producing 3% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions in the process. Advocates for the IMO’s regulations to change this have vowed to address key sticking points and come back next year to try again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the IMO in London, overlooking the River Thames, Dialogue Earth spoke with delegates and observers across the debating chamber and bustling lunch-hour canteen \u2013 documenting the meeting\u2019s highs and lows. Then, after the unexpected denouement, we asked them if there is a path forward for the net-zero plans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"seated<\/div>
On the final day of the meeting to adopt the net-zero rules, the debating chamber is filled with anxious delegates uncertain about what comes next for the industry (Image:\u00a0International Maritime Organization<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0Flickr<\/a>,\u00a0CC BY<\/a>)<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

A plan to move away from fossil fuels<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Shipping is under huge pressure to move away from fossil fuels, especially from governments in countries threatened by climate change such as the Pacific island nations, and from Europe, where the European Union has introduced its own shipping-emission rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2023, IMO member states unanimously<\/a> agreed to achieve net-zero emissions from the sector \u201cby or around\u201d 2050. To meet this pledge, a Net-Zero Framework was proposed to incentivise investments into greener marine fuels; construction of greener ships; and upgrades of existing vessels and ports to use fuels like green methanol and green ammonia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The framework<\/a> set out rules for vessels to reduce their greenhouse gas intensity, meaning their emissions per unit of energy used. Vessels failing to meet the intensity targets would face charges, starting at USD 100 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those failing short of an even more lenient threshold would face a higher rate under the framework: USD 380 per tonne on emissions exceeding the base target. Vessels that overperform and are more efficient than required could earn \u201csurplus units\u201d and trade these with other ships.  Any payments collected would go into a Net-Zero Fund to mitigate impacts of climate change on developing states and reward low-emission ships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

‘Unexpectedly challenging’<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The overarching framework was approved in April<\/a> by a large majority of nations: 63 backed it, 16 were opposed and 24 abstained. Despite strong opposition from the US, many of these countries appeared to have maintained their support heading into this month\u2019s talks \u2013 which were supposed to consider some changes to the text and give it a final sign-off. This gave proponents early confidence that adoption was within reach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The official adoption would mean writing the new rules into the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol). The plan was set to come into force in 2027 and be fully operational in 2028. But the outcome of this month\u2019s meeting means it could instead be pushed back or even abandoned entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is Marpol?<\/span>
\n

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol<\/a>) is a set of rules designed to minimise pollution from the operation of ships and accidents involving them. Most of the International Maritime Organisation\u2019s 176 member states have ratified it.

The globe-spanning tool operates outside the control of any one country. Even if a ship docks in a country that has not ratified this convention, the ship must still comply, because it would otherwise lose its safety certification. Without this certification, a ship cannot be insured, and bank loans cannot be accessed \u2013 both of which are essential for shipping.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Anita M\u00e4kinen, one of Finland\u2019s representatives to the IMO said she entered the first session on 14 October aware that the geopolitics could threaten the adoption. \u201cBut I never really thought it could be this challenging.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finland is part of a group of EU countries pushing for the deal, alongside other vocal proponents such as Brazil and some Pacific island countries including Tuvalu. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their initial optimism faded midweek, when the negotiations grew increasingly tense. At one point, tension ran so high the meeting\u2019s chair tried to cut it by asking if there was a doctor in the room.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delegates from the US and Saudi Arabia made attempts to stall the proceedings. Their tactics ranged from challenging the meeting agenda’s adoption to proposing the IMO should require governments\u2019 explicit acceptance for adoption, which would go against the usual IMO approach of assuming acceptance of negotiation outcomes. Meanwhile, more nations expressed doubts about the adoption as the week went on.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Countries that had previously voted to approve the framework \u2013 including China, India and Kenya \u2013 supported delaying a vote on the adoption, while major shipping nations such as Greece and Cyprus abstained. On the final day of the meeting, 17 October, countries voted 57 to 49 in favour of delaying, with 21 abstentions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n