Governments made progress on finalising technical elements in the Net-Zero Framework (NZF), the world’s first global carbon pricing on any polluter, at working group negotiations (ISWG-GHG-21) on 20-24 April in London.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) debated the design and implementation of this key climate agreement, including clean energy and how to spend the $10-12bn/year worth of revenues.
At the ISWG-GHG-21, 62 countries, including in Africa, Europe, Asia, South America, and the Pacific, engaged constructively in developing various elements around the Framework’s guidelines. A majority of these countries (39) engaged specifically on the collection and distribution of revenues, which are made possible by the carbon price. These included countries who voted in favour of the delay in adoption or abstained in the vote last October. Several countries objected to the discussions, but only 4 states explicitly refused to engage on the carbon pricing-related topics. More information about the meeting can be found in the read-out prepared by the UCL Energy Institute available later on Friday, 24 April.
The countries’ willingness to work together and move forward on the design of the Framework this week can be interpreted as a quiet act of resistance against Trump and petrostates who continue to strongly oppose the agreement, say some delegates.
Additionally, countries also discussed safeguards to prevent shipping’s expansion into unsustainable biofuels, which experts and campaigners warn would have devastating environmental and food security impacts, with the debate to continue next week.
Next week discussions will take place at a political level regarding any changes to the NZF’s architecture (removing the carbon pricing element that raises revenues and/or weakening the agreed limits to phase-out fossil fuels), at the 84th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 84) on 27 April – 1 May. The IMO has until November 2026 to discuss adoption again.
Japan is suggesting to scrap the carbon price, against the interests of vulnerable countries who would lose access to critical finance. A group of largely oil producing countries including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia, Argentina want the carbon pricing element out, while also pushing to weaken agreed limits on carbon intensity in fuels which would prolong the use of fossil fuels. The US rejects the NZF altogether.
Why this IMO meeting matters: The IMO is a battleground for countries to unite against the US and largely oil producing states to ensure the NZF is kept intact and adopted in its current form later this year. The NZF is key to help get ships off volatile fossil fuels faster, cut shipping fuel costs long-term, and move the industry closer towards achieving the climate targets countries unanimously committed to. Global shipping is experiencing some of the biggest disruptions in recent years due to the conflict in the Middle East, with the cost of bunker fuels doubling.
Em Fenton (they/them), Senior Director of Climate Diplomacy, Opportunity Green said: “This week’s IMO negotiations have been encouraging and productive on the technical guidelines that will accompany the Net-Zero Framework. Developing countries are especially playing an engaged and constructive role in shaping a NZF that will directly affect their economies and communities. Next week, the political stakes are higher. We’re calling on all countries, and especially the EU, to bring that same ambition and solidarity into MEPC. A united, ambitious EU standing behind this Framework will be crucial in the face of anticipated geopolitical hostility. It is vital that MEPC is conducted in the same spirit of solidarity and ambition to keep the NZF alive – and the majority of nations who have fought for it must now stand firm.”
Delaine McCullough, President, Clean Shipping Coalition, said: “We were pleased to see IMO member states actively engaged in working out the details of the Net-Zero Framework, countering opponents’ claims that the IMO is a ‘house divided’. While we welcome the progress achieved, IMO member states must hold the line against those looking to once again disrupt and delay. The NZF is imperfect, but is the fruit of years of negotiations and compromise, and has broad support among IMO member states.”
Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation, Global Maritime Forum, said: “This week at the IMO we saw an encouraging willingness from both states and industry to make progress on the guidelines essential to implementing an agreement. The transition to zero-emission shipping requires companies to develop strategic plans and begin making investments today, but to do so they need a clear and reliable regulatory environment. Detailed and comprehensive guidelines that are in line with the IMO’s greenhouse gas strategy – for example on emission calculations and rewards for alternative fuels — can give the companies the guidance they need and the confidence to invest in the transition to zero-emission technologies. It is now vital that this week’s spirit of collaboration continues next week.”
Dr. Dola Oluteye, Senior Research Fellow in Energy and Transport Policy, University College London, said: “Decisions at the IMO over these two weeks is critical to Africa’s economic and energy future, demonstrable in the rising voice of the African governments contributing meaningfully to shaping of the Net-Zero Framework guidelines. Several African nations are demanding that the proposed multi-billion dollar Net-Zero Fund is used to support Africa in recognition of the level of impact of the Framework. Africa can become the world’s renewable energy hub equal to the share of its natural endowments. Demand for a just transition is critical to ensuring the Net-Zero Framework does not set her back. As such, the Fund is non-negotiable for her 1.4bn people.”
Christiaan De Beukelaer, Senior Lecturer in Culture & Climate, University of Melbourne, said: “When adopted, the Net-Zero Framework will raise money by penalising non-compliance. The use of such revenues has long been a point of contention. This week, the vast majority of countries have constructively engaged in discussions on the purpose and modalities of the Fund administering and disbursing these revenues. This signals support to adopt the NZF as is, which will help IMO regulations to ensure a just and equitable transition.”
Jamie Yates, Climate and Renewable Energy Manager, Pacific Environment, said: “Member states concluded a productive week in London at ISWG 21, advancing key technical details of the Net Zero Framework and building broad consensus around the Net-Zero Fund as one of its foundational pillars. Support came from across all world regions, and African and Pacific voices were particularly clear: the NZF must remain the basis for IMO climate action. Member states should heed that call.”
Anaïs Rios, Senior Shipping Policy Officer, Seas At Risk, said: “Recent geopolitical instability may give the illusion that we are all reliant on fossil fuels but that is simply not true: shipping can decarbonise and must. Next week, countries must come together to support a strong Net-Zero Framework, including dedicated funding for those who need it most, and we are relying on the EU to stand united. Delaying or watering down the very regulation designed to clean up shipping leads us down a dangerous path towards weak action that comes too late. The ocean, the climate and ultimately, the people, will pay the price.”
Michael Petroni, Policy Analyst, Climate Action Tracker, said: “While not perfect, in its current form the Net-Zero Framework is the IMO’s most ambitious emissions reductions mechanism to date. It will likely put shipping on a path to limit temperature warming to 2°C, if all other sectors followed the same level of action. It would be a crucial tool for driving the uptake of zero-emissions fuel for the shipping industry. Without it, we’re likely to see shipping emissions continue rising through to 2050. Further strengthening of the NZF is still needed to align with a 1.5°C compatible pathway.”
Aparajit Pandey, Principal, Rocky Mountain Institute, said: “Biofuels may have a role to play in shipping’s transition, but only where they are assessed with real rigor. That means properly accounting for indirect land use change and taking a careful, full-systems view of their broader environmental and social impacts. Without that, there is a real risk of overstating climate benefits and creating unintended consequences elsewhere.”
Madadh MacLaine, Secretary General, ZESTAs, said: “The IMO’s discussion on clean energy guidelines is not a technical footnote – these guidelines will form the core, laying the very foundations that will determine the effectiveness of the colossal work done at the IMO on GHG emissions over the last years. They are the rules that determine which fuels win. Get them wrong, and we lock in a generation of vessels running on fuels that look clean on paper but deliver little for a clean energy transition. Hydrogen is proven and ready to scale, but cannot compete against false solutions propped up by weak accounting methodologies. The window to set this right is open now. We need to get this right before it slams shut.”
The NZF was agreed in April 2025, but its adoption was delayed a few months later, in a close vote (57 in favour and 49 against), due to strong pressure from the US and Saudi Arabia. The IMO has until November 2026 to discuss adoption again.
The NZF is a key tool for shipping to be able to achieve its 2023 Revised Strategy goals: reaching net-zero by 2050 in a just and equitable way.
The latest analysis by UCL warns that removing the revenue-raising ability of the NZF ensured by a carbon price would have serious negative impacts on the sector’s energy transition, and increase the vulnerability of developing countries to economic shocks. This is because the lack of a carbon price would mean increased fuel price volatility, slower adoption of clean energy, and lack of revenues for a just and equitable transition.
A study funded by container shipping giant CMA-CGM also found that decarbonising shipping under the NZF would ultimately be cheaper than the cost of inaction.
Source: Clean Shipping Coalition
