The world is divided when it comes to working out global shipping’s green agenda. The successful campaign – led by the US and Saudi Arabia – to ensure the International Maritime Organization’s Net-Zero Framework (NZF) was not ratified this month has rattled regulators, especially in Europe, where Greece and Cyprus’s decision to abstain from voting on deferring the NZF has drawn the ire of the European Commission.
Delegates at the Marine Environment Protection Committee’s extraordinary session in London voted on October 18 to adjourn discussions for 12 months after failing to reach consensus or call a vote on the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, which include the key elements of the framework.
Shipping now faces significantly increased uncertainty and therefore risk
The decision pushes any adoption of the IMO Net-Zero Framework into late 2026 at the earliest, complicating the timeline for meeting the organisation’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategy agreed in 2023.
The framework—approved in principle at MEPC 83 in April 2025—sets out a global fuel standard and an emissions pricing mechanism, which together would form the backbone of international shipping’s path to net zero by 2050.
Analysts at consultancy Linerlytica have produced a map (see below) on how this month’s vote at IMO’s London headquarters played out, showing clearly how divided IMO member states are when it comes to the NZF.
“There is now certainty that this regulation’s entry into effect will be delayed by 12 months to 1st January 2029, but there is also increased uncertainty that it will be adopted at all,” commented a release from University College London (UCL).
Dr Tristan Smith, professor of energy and transport at UCL Shipping and Oceans Research Group, said: “Instead of clarification, shipping and the global trade and energy systems now face significantly increased uncertainty and therefore risk. Understanding what happened at the IMO in October and why is now central not just for any chance of future adoption, but for just and equitable climate action generally. This lost momentum can be recovered, but we have taken a step closer to the abyss that is dangerous climate change.”
One potential upshot from this month’s indecision, according to analysts at Jefferies, an investment bank, could be a shift back to conventional fuel engines for new vessel orders and for many of those currently in the orderbook.
“We expect many to shift their dual-fuel ‘capable’ newbuildings to dual-fuel ‘ready’ to lower capex, especially for 2027 and onward deliveries (when engine changes can still be made). If there is one benefit to the IMO’s stalled initiatives, it is that shipping costs may be coming down,” Jefferies mooted in a note to clients.
A statement from the Sustainable Shipping Initiative (SSI) suggested the vote highlights some of the vulnerabilities of the IMO, the growing politicisation of decision-making and fragmented consensus between regions.
“We anticipate wider impacts from how national administrations respond, the evolution of regional regulations and the signals this sends out to the financial markets who are looking for long-term clarity,” SSI warned.
