More Delays on Net-Zero Framework: What It Means for Global Shipping and Climate Goals

Introduction

In a pivotal moment for maritime climate policy, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has officially postponed the adoption of its Net-Zero Framework (NZF) until October 2026. The decision, made during the Marine Environment Protection Committee’s (MEPC) second extraordinary session held in London from October 14–17, 2025, has sparked widespread concern across environmental groups, industry stakeholders, and governments.

Read also about Historic Agreement at MEPC 83: A Step Towards Greener Shipping

The delay comes at a time when the shipping sector — responsible for nearly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions — is under increasing pressure to decarbonize. The IMO’s Net-Zero Framework was seen as a landmark initiative to align international shipping with the Paris Agreement and the IMO’s own 2023 GHG Strategy, which targets net-zero emissions by 2050.

What Is the IMO Net-Zero Framework?

The IMO Net-Zero Framework, first approved in principle during MEPC 83 in April 2025, is a proposed amendment to MARPOL Annex VI, introducing a new Chapter 5 focused on climate action. It includes:

• A global fuel standard that accounts for the full lifecycle emissions of maritime fuels.
• A carbon pricing mechanism — the first of its kind globally — to penalize high-emitting ships and reward low-emission vessels.
• A Net-Zero Fund to support clean fuel adoption and a just transition in developing countries.
• Binding targets for ships over 5,000 gross tonnes, starting in 2028.

If adopted, the framework would make shipping the first industrial sector to operate under a globally agreed carbon pricing regime.

Why Was the Framework Delayed?

Despite months of technical preparation and broad support from environmental groups and many IMO member states, the vote to adopt the NZF was postponed for one year due to a lack of consensus.

Key Reasons for the Delay:

1. Geopolitical Opposition:
   The United States, backed by Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations, strongly opposed the framework, labeling it a “global carbon tax” that would unfairly burden American consumers and benefit competitors like China.
2. Industry Pushback:
   Some shipowners, particularly from Greece, criticized the framework as “unrealistic” and “detached from commercial realities”, arguing that the proposed fuel standards and pricing mechanisms could disrupt global trade.
3. Close Vote Margin:
   The final vote saw 57 in favor, 49 against, and 21 abstentions — barely surpassing the simple majority required, but not enough to secure the two-thirds majority needed for formal adoption.

Reactions from the Global Community

🌱 Environmental Groups

Organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Ocean Conservancy expressed deep disappointment, calling the delay a “missed opportunity” and a “disgraceful setback” for climate action.

“Every delay means innovation will struggle to scale, inequities will deepen, and the transition to clean shipping will become harder and more costly.” — EDF

“This failure marks a major setback for people and the planet. It’s disgraceful that climate action has been delayed when we see the devastating impacts every day.” — Ocean Conservancy

🌐 Developing Nations

Countries like Vanuatu and Colombia criticized the delay as a violation of international climate obligations. Vanuatu’s climate minister cited a recent International Court of Justice ruling, emphasizing that climate action is not optional under international law.

What Happens Next?

Although the adoption vote is delayed, technical work continues:

• The Intersessional Working Group on GHG Emissions (ISWG-GHG 20) is proceeding as planned from October 20–24, 2025, to develop guidelines for implementing the NZF.
• The framework will be reconsidered in October 2026, with potential revisions to address concerns raised during the MEPC session.
• The earliest possible entry into force is now March 1, 2028. [dnv.com]

Implications for the Shipping Industry

📉 Regulatory Uncertainty

The delay creates a regulatory vacuum, leaving shipowners and fuel suppliers uncertain about future compliance requirements. This could stall investments in green technologies, alternative fuels, and emission-reduction retrofits.

💰 Financial Impact

Without a clear carbon pricing mechanism, the industry lacks incentives to transition away from fossil fuels. This could:

• Slow down innovation.
• Increase long-term costs.
• Deepen inequalities between developed and developing maritime nations.

🌐 Trade and Diplomacy

The postponement sends mixed signals to global markets and may undermine confidence in the IMO’s ability to lead on climate. It also complicates negotiations ahead of COP30 in Bélem, where shipping’s role in climate action will be under scrutiny.

Maritime-Hub Supports the IMO Net-Zero Framework

At Maritime-Hub, we are committed to a sustainable and forward-thinking maritime industry. We fully support the adoption of the IMO Net-Zero Framework, recognizing it as a vital step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and aligning global shipping with international climate goals.

We believe that implementing lifecycle-based fuel standards, a global carbon pricing mechanism, and a just transition fund will drive innovation, promote environmental responsibility, and ensure a fair transition for all stakeholders — especially those in developing regions.

As the industry evolves, Maritime-Hub stands ready to contribute to a cleaner, smarter, and more resilient maritime future.