Time is running out for shipping’s climate compromise

Governments must decide next month whether to protect the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework or reopen a deal that took years to negotiate and risks becoming weaker with every compromise. Anais Rios, senior shipping policy officer at Seas at Risk, gives Splash readers an overview of the various submissions doing the rounds at IMO HQ in London.

2026 is, so far, the year of climate disasters. Europe has endured record-breaking heatwaves and one of its worst wildfires seasons in recent history. Southern and Western Africa are recovering from devastating floods, while communities around the world continue to face ever more destructive climate extremes. Yet governments are still debating whether to strengthen, or weaken, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) climate measures for shipping.  

In April 2025, the IMO approved the draft Net-Zero Framework (NZF) and it remains the basis for negotiations. It’s not perfect. However, it is the most equitable and climate-ambitious framework agreed upon, yet momentum has stalled. Rather than moving towards an adoption, countries are now debating whether to adopt it as it stands, amend it, or replace it.  

The NZF combines a greenhouse gas pricing mechanism with a Net-Zero Fund. Revenues help countries transition to cleaner shipping. The framework creates a system of emission targets. Ships that outperform their targets would earn credits, while those that fall short must either buy those credits or pay remedial charges. As targets become stricter over time, the financial incentive to adopt cleaner fuels and technology grows.  

The urgency to clean up shipping has never been greater. 2024 was the first year in which global temperatures exceeded 1.5oC above pre-industrialised levels. This is a stark warning of the direction we are heading. Every fraction of a degree brings more extreme weather, greater pressure on food and ocean systems, and higher costs for communities and economies alike. So why are governments still debating whether to weaken a framework that has already been approved at the IMO? 

The weakest alternative proposal, submitted by Liberia, would significantly change the balance. Rather than relying on a combination of emission trading and fixed remedial payments, it would place greater emphasis on trading surplus units between ships and remove mandatory payments into a Net-Zero Fund. Instead of generating a dedicated fund to support a just and equitable transition, payments would largely flow between companies. If buying emission credits becomes cheaper than upgrading ships, then investment in zero to near-zero emission fuels would also become weaker.  

Another proposal from Brazil retains the overall architecture of the NZF but delays the early decarbonisation reduction threshold in exchange for steeper reductions later. While this may make an agreement more politically acceptable by lowering short-term costs, delaying would not just affect climate reduction ambition and early investment in zero- and near zero-emissions that are critical in this decade, risking the transition before it has properly begun. It would also postpone revenues to the fund, making the transition harder and more expensive for all than under the current approved NZF. 

Tuvalu’s has put forward the most ambitious proposal, requiring all greenhouse gas emissions above zero to incur a charge. Estimates suggest it would raise more than US$100 billion per year during the 2030s, compared with around US$12 billion per year under the current NZF, meaning that shipping would meet IMO’s decarbonisation targets whilst generating the funds needed for a just and equitable transition. However, the proposal is politically contentious as it would impose higher costs from the outset and could be refused by the US and petrostates.  

All of the above proposals were submitted to the IMO within the required deadline, making them eligible for adoption later this year. 

Japan has also tabled its own proposal that would allow shipowners to direct part of their compliance payments towards projects of their own choosing, rather than contributing to a dedicated IMO fund for a just and equitable transition. This would make funding less predictable, reduce support to countries in need; and risk slowing the transition, making it more expensive over time. However, because Japan’s proposal was submitted after the deadline, it cannot be voted for adoption this year. 

Meanwhile, Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom agree to preserve the Net-Zero Framework as agreed on in April 2025, arguing that the urgency of the climate crisis calls for implementation rather than reopening negotiations. 

The current framework is not perfect. It is unlikely to deliver every emission reduction needed to meet IMO’s climate goals, and it will need to – and can – be strengthened over time. But it already contains the foundations of a global system that rewards cleaner shipping, creates predictable investment signals and supports countries that cannot do it alone.  

Countries can and should debate the pace of implementation and level of ambition. Now, the framework is ready to be adopted. Weakening the greenhouse gas pricing mechanism or the Net-Zero Fund would not make the transition cheaper. It would make it more uncertain, less equitable, and harder to deliver.  

As the climate crisis accelerates around us, the question is no longer whether shipping must decarbonise. It is whether governments have the political courage to protect the framework they have spent so many years negotiating. The people and the planet cannot afford another year of delay.