The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has postponed the adoption of the long-awaited Net-Zero Framework (NZF) by one year, following a fraught week of negotiations in London marked by accusations of bullying, walkouts, and deep geopolitical division. The decision effectively halts what would have been the world’s first global carbon pricing system on an international polluter, dealing a significant blow to efforts to decarbonise global shipping.
The motion to delay, proposed by Saudi Arabia following an earlier procedural intervention by Singapore, passed narrowly after an aggressive campaign led by the United States. The Trump administration, which branded the proposed carbon levy a ‘global green new scam’, had reportedly threatened sanctions, tariffs, and trade penalties against nations supporting the measure. The US delegation’s conduct drew sharp criticism from diplomats, who described the atmosphere at the MEPC’s extraordinary session as ‘unprecedented’ and ‘undiplomatic’.
The outcome means the NZF, which had won provisional approval in April with the backing of 63 countries including the EU, China, India, Brazil and UK will not return for adoption until late 2026 at the earliest. In last week’s vote, 57 countries backed the adjournment, 49 opposed it, and 21 abstained, compared with 63 votes in favour of the framework in April. The framework was intended to impose a carbon price on ships over 5,000 GT, with revenues expected to reach $15 billion annually by 2030. It was also designed to provide finance for green fuels and support to climate-vulnerable states.
For many governments, particularly those representing Small Island Developing States (SIDS), the deferral represents a major failure. Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change, said the delay was ‘unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change’. The Marshall Islands’ ambassador, Albon Ishoda, accused major powers of ‘bullying, threatening, and sidelining’ Pacific delegates, warning that ‘a year delay is a year of more devastation and displacement for our communities’.
Environmental organisations expressed similar frustration. The Environmental Defense Fund said the delay was a ‘setback that risks derailing the timeline countries agreed to under the IMO’s 2023 strategy’. Teresa Bui of Pacific Environment called it a ‘betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable nations’. Others, such as Seas at Risk, said the postponement had exposed the weakness of international cooperation. ‘This isn’t the United States of Shipping,’ noted shipping policy officer Anaïs Rios. ‘No single flag should dictate the world’s climate course.’
While shipowner groups generally lamented the uncertainty created by the adjournment, some welcomed the opportunity to refine the framework. The Global Maritime Forum described it as a ‘disappointing setback’ but urged member states to recommit to the process. ‘The adjournment for a full year creates serious challenges for meeting the timelines in the NZF agreed in April,’ said decarbonisation director Jesse Fahnestock. ‘We encourage member states to continue developing a regulatory framework that can deliver on the IMO’s agreed greenhouse gas strategy.’
The Union of Greek Shipowners said the pause offered a ‘new opportunity to shape a sustainable and effective international framework’, while Intertanko and Intercargo emphasised the need to use the time to address ambiguities in the current proposal.
The immediate concern among many shipowners is that the delay will accelerate regulatory fragmentation. James Helliwell, commercial director for decarbonisation at V. Group, warned that ‘what had broad support six months ago has been derailed by a coordinated opposition campaign, leaving the industry facing precisely the fragmented regulatory landscape we sought to avoid’. Regional initiatives such as the EU ETS are likely to gain greater prominence in the absence of a global measure.
The IMO’s secretary-general, Arsenio Dominguez, acknowledged the breakdown of diplomacy, urging delegates to avoid a repeat of the week’s confrontations. ‘There were no winners,’ he told the closing session. ‘My plea to you is not to repeat the way we approached this meeting.’
While the IMO’s Intersessional Working Group on Greenhouse Gases (IMO ISWG-GHG) continues its technical discussions this week, few observers expect major progress until the political climate changes. For now, the shipping industry’s flagship climate mechanism remains in limbo, and its path to adoption increasingly uncertain.
