Maritime nations at the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization headquarters in London kept a core package aimed at tackling greenhouse gas emissions from ships, but they also decided not to complete the work needed to lock in final rules this week. Delegates adjourned the meeting with more sessions scheduled for later in the year, setting up negotiations that could still include a vote in the late fall on what is being billed as a “Net-zero Framework” for international shipping.
Under the plan preserved at the meeting, the regulations would establish a pricing mechanism that applies fees for greenhouse gases emitted by ships above allowable limits, effectively creating what delegates described as the first global fee on shipping emissions. The fees would be collected into an IMO fund meant to support investment in low-emission fuels and technologies, reward ships that run on cleaner inputs, and help developing countries make the transition.
IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez told delegates as the meeting closed that they were “we kind of are back on track,” as he urged them to rebuild trust and continue talking. Meeting chairman Harry Conway, the Liberian official, told the group on Friday that the options still on the table—after countries raised alternative proposals—could remain eligible for consideration at forthcoming meetings, and that new documents could still be submitted. The document governing the fall work was then modified to make that explicit.
The choice to keep discussing alternatives drew criticism from some countries, including Australia, which expressed concern that allowing multiple routes forward could slow momentum as climate change impacts intensify. Those concerns were tied to the shipping industry’s calls for policy certainty to enable investments in greener technologies and fuels.
The industry-focused tension is rooted in earlier setbacks for the same overall package. Nations had agreed to the Net-zero Framework last year, when delegates were expected to adopt it during a meeting in October, but a decision was derailed by the United States’ objections—alongside support from Saudi Arabia and others—and the involvement of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade threats. Delegates postponed the decision by a year and adjourned at that point, setting up this year’s continued negotiations.
The week’s outcome preserved the framework that delegates previously agreed on, even as the process remained flexible for alternative proposals. Opportunity Green’s Em Fenton said the framework “survived,” with a majority of countries backing it, but he cautioned that “survival is not a victory” and that delegates should not end up “in a cycle of open-ended negotiations.” Fenton said negotiators should move toward adoption later this year while maintaining urgency and ambition, and delivering what he described as justice and equity for countries on the front lines of climate impacts.
The proposal’s structure addresses both fuel use and the transition financing that would make compliance possible. Shipping emissions have grown over the past decade to about 3% of the global total as trade has increased and vessels continue to burn heavy fuel oil that releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Large ships typically last about 25 years, meaning the industry would need to change and invest well before 2050, the date the IMO has set as a target for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The IMO has also said it is committed to increasing the use of fuels with zero or near-zero emissions.
Delegates said some countries and stakeholders are especially interested in alternative fuels such as ammonia, which the plan describes as not containing carbon. The Net-zero Framework would also set a marine fuel standard that would reduce over time the amount of greenhouse gases allowed from using shipping fuels, while pairing those standards with the fee-and-fund system for compliance and support.
Those pushing for adoption described the potential effect as more sustainable footing for the sector both environmentally and economically. Mark Brownstein, senior vice president for energy transition at Environmental Defense Fund, said the rules would place the global shipping industry on more sustainable footing than where it is today, and he pointed to oil prices as still supported by geopolitical developments, including the war with Iran. Representing a large share of the merchant fleet, the International Chamber of Shipping has also advocated adoption, according to the report.
For now, delegates are left with a negotiating runway rather than a decision deadline. With the framework preserved but alternatives still under consideration, the late-fall vote—if it comes—will be shaped by unresolved disagreements over whether a global carbon fee should proceed as a central element of the IMO’s approach to reducing shipping emissions.