With negotiations on a landmark climate agreement that offers the world’s first global carbon price on any pollutant with a second breeze looming, the resumption of talks at the United Nations is seen as a major test of whether countries can unite against the United States and other largely oil-producing nations to defend and adopt the framework as planned later this year to help reduce shipping’s reliance on fossil fuels and lower bunker fuel costs in the long term.
After IMO member states agreed in 2023 that meeting climate commitments for the shipping sector would require a carbon price as an economic measure as well as a fuel standard as a technical measure, this combination was then included in the agreed IMO agreement. Net Zero Framework (NZF) for international shipping in 2025. However, adoption of the New Zealand framework was delayed a few months later, after a close vote, due to strong opposition from the United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia and other oil nations.
Rockford WitzProfessor of Practice and Director of the Marine and Arctic Studies Program at Fletcher School at Tufts University emphasized: “By rejecting the IMO’s net zero framework, the Trump administration is allowing ideology to undermine its own goals, as outlined in the 2025 National Maritime Strategy and the 2026 Maritime Action Plan, both of which aim to support the revival of American shipbuilding and increase global competitiveness.
“One of the best ways to achieve this goal is to support investment in new, clean technologies, including ships powered by ammonia and methanol engines. Instead, the administration is trying to prevent this andA framework that would encourage this investment.“
Since the IMO has until November 2026 to discuss its adoption again, governments will return to the negotiating table at the UN to think about a net-zero framework. The talks at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London are scheduled to take place as a two-part summit: the Technical Working Group talks (ISWG-GHG-21) on April 20-24, and the 84th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC84) on April 27-May 1.
Jesse FahnestockThe Director of Decarbonisation at the World Marine Forum emphasized: “The IMO’s greenhouse gas strategy remains in place, and there is no alternative path on the table for shipping’s transition to net zero. Global regulation would give the industry the certainty it needs to make the significant investments in new fuels, ships and infrastructure needed to achieve this strategy.
“Wherever policy goes, shipping needs a stable framework, one that enforces compliance in a way that companies can price, and that puts resources behind transformation in a globally comprehensive way. Making fewer choices or delaying difficult choices will only harm the industry’s ability to prepare for the future.“
The latest summit is being held against the backdrop of disruptions in oil flows Ship fuel shipping costs have doubled because of Conflict in the Middle Eastexpose how reliant Global shipping depends on volatile fossil fuels. Technical discussions in the first week of the summit (ISWG-GHG-21) are scheduled to focus on ironing out key policy details in the yet-to-be-determined New Zealand Fund guidelines.
Fanny DefoeThe shipping director of the Transport and Environment Company said: “The current oil crisis should be at the heart of discussions at the IMO. Disruption of the Strait of Hormuz has already cost the industry €11.2 billion, demonstrating that shipping’s reliance on fossil fuels represents a huge economic liability.
“Alternative propulsion such as electricity or e-fuels provides the only viable escape against the geopolitical premium for fossil fuels. The shipping industry deserves an international maritime organization with the backbone to prioritize a real net zero deal over political pressure. We cannot accept anything that seals the status quo without any climate ambition.“
This includes clean energy and how to spend the estimated $10 billion to $12 billion annually in revenue generated through carbon pricing in the framework, such as penalty fees on emissions above a certain threshold. The main focus of the week will be on the role of biofuels in the clean transition of shipping, as some countries push for the expansion of cheap food and crop-based biofuels, which Experts and Activists Warning comes with serious environmental and climate risks.
In FentonSenior Director of Climate Diplomacy at Opportunity Green explained: “The IMO’s net zero framework is not just a climate measure – it is a test of how international cooperation can survive in an era of increasing geopolitical pressures. The majority of the world’s countries want this to succeed. Opposition may be vocal, but that does not mean it will drown out the voices demanding ambition and justice, many of which come from the communities most affected by climate impacts.
“We must remember that what happens at these IMO meetings has significance far beyond the shipping industry. It will determine whether billions of dollars in revenue will reach the countries, communities and zero-emissions technology projects that need it most, accelerating a just transition for all.
On the other hand, policy discussions in the second week (MEPC84) will consider the future of the New Zealand Fund and whether it will remain in its current form or be reopened to make fundamental changes to its structure, in relation to removing the carbon price and/or weakening agreed limits for phasing out fossil fuels.
John CooperThe CEO of BAR Technologies noted: “The current geopolitical backdrop is a clear reminder that shipping remains fundamentally exposed to fossil fuel price shocks and that this exposure is becoming more volatile. Fuel typically represents 50-60% of voyage costs, so fluctuations in energy markets directly feed into the cost of global trade.
“Wind propulsion solutions like WindWings can instantly reduce fuel consumption and reduce exposure to volatile fuel markets, without waiting for new fuels or new infrastructure. A clear global policy signal, such as the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework, is now critical to accelerating the uptake of clean energy on board ships. Without it, the industry risks a more chaotic and costly transition.
As the EU, UK, Brazil, China, Norway, Mexico, Kenya, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Togo and Pacific Island nations support the New Zealand Fund broadly as it stands, including its ability to raise revenue through a carbon price, they see it as critical to making the framework successful and an opportunity to make the shipping sector fairer. On the other hand, Japan He suggests eliminating the carbon price as a compromise, which is likely to happen Antagonizing weak countries He would lose access to vital financing.
Michael MbaruA maritime decarbonisation and green shipping expert at the Office of the Special Climate Envoy for Kenya commented: “the andThe framework adopted in 2025 has been carefully designed as a package that combines fuel standards and a pricing mechanism. The pricing element is not optional, so if it disappears, the entire frame disappears. We remain committed to one global rulebook and are not ready to reopen the field andFramework“.
While a group of largely oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Russia and Argentina, want to eliminate the carbon pricing element while also seeking to weaken agreed-upon limits on the carbon intensity of fuels, which would prolong the use of fossil fuels, the United States, led by the Trump administration, rejects New Zealand’s framework outright.
Aurelia LiuThe Sasha Alliance’s EU Policy Director stressed the following: “For the bold companies leading the marine transition, economic action alongside the NZF Fuel Standard is non-negotiable. Creating a financial enabling environment for companies pioneering the development of more sustainable marine energy systems requires stable, long-term market signals and predictable revenue streams from parts of the Net Zero Fund.”
“Without the regulatory certainty provided by economic action, the New Zealand Fund would risk locking in fossil fuels and significantly undermining the industry’s long-term resilience and sustainability.
A recent analysis by UCL warns that removing the New Zealand Fund’s ability to collect revenues guaranteed by a carbon price would have a significant impact on the national economy. Serious negative effects on the energy transition in the sectorThis increases the vulnerability of developing countries to economic shocks due to increased fuel price volatility, slow adoption of clean energy, and lack of revenues necessary for a fair and equitable transition. A CMA-CGM-funded study also found that decarbonising shipping under the NZF would be possible It will be cheaper in the end The cost of inaction.
Dylan McCulloughThe head of the Clean Shipping Alliance confirmed: “The Net-Zero Framework is imperfect, but it includes all the critical technical and economic elements to allow IMO and the shipping industry to meet the climate commitments they have set for themselves in the IMO 2023 Greenhouse Gas Strategy, as well as their commitment to ensuring that all countries have the opportunity to fully participate in the shipping energy transition – or at least not be harmed by it.
“It is the result of years of negotiation and compromise and enjoys widespread support among IMO Member States. Anything less would be a climate failure and a political dead end.
Boost your brand with marine energy ⤵️
Steal the spotlight and establish your brand in the heart of the outside world!
Join us to make a greater impact and grow your presence at the core of the marine energy community!
