|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Edward Graham Sebbie
The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) plan to introduce a global framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping has suffered a setback following the postponement of a decision on its proposed Net-Zero Framework, prolonging uncertainty over the industry’s transition to cleaner fuels.
The framework, designed to reduce emissions from international shipping through fuel standards and economic measures, was expected to be formally adopted in October 2025. However, disagreements among member states delayed the process, leaving shipowners, fuel suppliers and governments uncertain about the timing and final shape of the proposed global regulations.
The postponement followed a contentious extraordinary session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London, where countries remained divided over the economic implications of the proposed measures and the appropriate pace of decarbonisation.
The framework had received approval in principle at the committee’s 83rd session in April 2025. Its central provisions included a global marine fuel standard designed to progressively reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels used by ships, alongside an economic mechanism intended to make higher-emission operations more expensive.
Under the proposed fuel standard, greenhouse gas intensity would be assessed on a well-to-wake basis, accounting for emissions associated with fuel production, transportation and use. The approach is intended to encourage the adoption of lower-emission alternatives, including sustainable biofuels, green methanol, ammonia and other emerging marine energy technologies.
The economic component would introduce financial consequences for ships that fail to meet the prescribed emissions requirements, alongside a system through which vessels exceeding their targets could generate or trade compliance credits.
Revenue from the proposed measures would support an IMO Net-Zero Fund intended to facilitate the transition to cleaner shipping, including investment in alternative fuels, research and development, and assistance for developing countries and other vulnerable economies.
The framework was designed to cover ocean-going vessels above 5,000 gross tonnage, a category responsible for a substantial proportion of emissions from international shipping. Its proposed implementation schedule envisaged initial obligations beginning in 2028, subject to the adoption and entry into force of the necessary legal amendments.
However, negotiations exposed significant differences among IMO member states over the proposed global carbon-pricing mechanism, its potential effect on international trade and the distribution of costs between shipping companies, fuel producers and importing economies.
Opposition led by the United States and supported by several countries concerned about the economic consequences of the measures complicated efforts to secure agreement. Saudi Arabia and other energy-producing countries also raised concerns about the implications for fuel markets and economies dependent on fossil fuel exports.
The United States argued that a global emissions levy could increase the cost of international trade and potentially distort commercial activity. Supporters of the framework, however, maintain that a common international system would provide greater regulatory certainty and prevent the emergence of competing regional approaches.
According to the account provided, 57 countries supported postponing the decision, while 49 opposed the move and 21 abstained. The proposed legally binding amendments to Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly known as MARPOL, were consequently not put to a final adoption vote.
IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez expressed disappointment over the lack of a final decision but maintained that efforts to decarbonise shipping were continuing. He has also emphasised the importance of international coordination to avoid fragmented regulations that could complicate compliance for vessels operating across multiple jurisdictions.
The delay has raised questions about investment in the infrastructure and fuel supply chains required to reduce emissions from shipping.
Shipowners making long-term investment decisions must increasingly consider the cost of complying with regional environmental regulations while accounting for uncertainty over future international requirements.
The European Union has already introduced measures affecting shipping emissions through its Emissions Trading System, which expanded to cover maritime transport in 2024, with its phase-in continuing through 2026. The EU’s FuelEU Maritime regulation, which began applying in 2025, also establishes progressively tighter greenhouse gas intensity requirements for energy used by ships within its scope.
The coexistence of regional rules and an unresolved global framework could increase compliance complexity for international shipping companies, particularly those operating on routes that fall under multiple regulatory systems.
The delay could also affect investment decisions involving alternative marine fuels. Shipowners and fuel suppliers need predictable regulations to assess the commercial viability of cleaner technologies, while infrastructure developers require confidence that demand for alternative fuels will grow sufficiently to justify major capital expenditure.
For Ghana, the outcome carries implications for the maritime transport sector, which plays an important role in the country’s international trade through the ports of Tema and Takoradi.
The cost of transitioning to cleaner fuels and meeting new emissions standards could affect shipping operators, importers, exporters and other businesses that depend on maritime transport. However, the extent of any impact would depend on the final framework, the vessels affected and the arrangements established to support developing countries.
The Ghana Chamber of Shipping has reportedly described the postponement as a form of reasoned restraint rather than an outright rejection of the proposed measures. Its president, Stanley R. K. Ahorlu, warned that immediate adoption could have exposed Ghana’s ageing, import-dependent fleet to economic consequences that had not been adequately quantified, particularly given uncertainties surrounding the proposed fund’s support for developing countries.
The debate therefore presents Ghana and other developing maritime economies with a difficult balancing act: supporting the long-term transition to cleaner shipping while ensuring that new international obligations do not impose disproportionate costs on operators and businesses with limited capacity to finance the transition.
Attention is now turning to the next round of IMO negotiations, where member states are expected to continue discussions on the framework’s adoption and implementation.
The eventual outcome will determine whether the international shipping industry receives a unified regulatory structure for its transition to net-zero emissions or continues to navigate a combination of regional requirements and unresolved global rules.
For now, uncertainty over the IMO framework remains a significant challenge for shipowners, fuel suppliers and governments planning investments in the future of international maritime transport.
