Opinion: MEPC80 deal sends a clear message (about the IMO)

The agreement also includes milestones for absolute reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from ships by 20-30% in 2030 and 70-80% in 2040.

The agreement has agreed to begin a roadmap to develop a standard to define a green fuel, while the final shape of mid-term measures to improve the economics of operating on fuels with lower greenhouse gas emission (GHG) profiles have been delayed.

The agreement will have wide-ranging consequences for the shipping market, introducing a goal that at least 5% of fuels in global shipping should be green by 2030.

However, the agreement has fallen short of the maximalist objectives adopted by environmentalist activists and lobbyists, who note that no agreement was reached on absolute emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2040, and that the strategy also aims to reach only net-zero “by or around, i.e., close to 2050”, depending on “national circumstances”.

The phrasing of the latter objective is understood to assuage China’s concerns, as it has a stated objective of achieving net zero by 2060.

There was no agreement around introducing climate-science based emission reduction targets by 2030 and 2040, which saw the emergence of two camps, led by the Pacific Island states, the US, the UK, Canada and by China, Argentina and Brazil, respectively.

Limitations of the IMO

While the agreement has been criticised as lacking in ambition from environmentalist activists and lobbyists, it does represent a concrete step towards achieving full decarbonisation by 2050 for the IMO.

The delicate task of negotiating the agreement has been complicated by the intense international media attention focused on the IMO and its members. 

The negotiating positions adopted by China and other member states were leaked to the media revealing concerns about the introduction of mercantilist trade policies in Europe and North America. While European or American readers might not see any connection between President Biden’s IRA Act, or Europe’s moves to de-risk supply chains with China, Chinese readers might have a different perspective.

Quite clearly, Brazil and Argentina, who were prominent opponents of 1.5°C-aligned action on shipping, fear the impact of higher transportation costs on key commodity trades with East Asia where exporters fear their market share might be eroded by competitors.

The last week has revealed that the IMO is having to consider issues that were never considered at its time of founding. The organisation faces a challenge to maintain its position as the international forum for maritime regulation as conversations turn to subjects, such as decarbonisation, where many countries have vital strategic national interests at stake.

Reaching an agreement for the IMO to depoliticise the development of regulations should be a key objective for the organisation, before the emergence of hydrogen exports later this decade creates groupings of member states with divergent strategic objectives as fuel suppliers.

This has wider implications for the organisation beyond climate change. We expect the looming introduction of semi-autonomous and autonomous systems at scale to require changes to IMO rules before the end of the decade.