EXCLUSIVE: IMO net-zero framework delay risks

Entitled ‘Uncertainty at the IMO: Three scenarios and their consequences for shipping’s transition’, the paper was authored by Femke Spiegelenberg, project manager, Getting to Zero Coalition, Global Maritime Forum and Dr Tristan Smith, Professor of Energy and Transport, UCL Energy Institute.

It assesses three possible outcomes for negotiations at the International Maritime Organization and concludes that only the Net-Zero Framework (NZF) agreed in principle in April 2025 can provide a credible, stable demand signal to scale scalable zero-emission fuels.

On the impact of further delays or a weakened framework on investment decisions, the authors told The Motorship: “Any further delay on the agreement and lack of clarity or weakening of the NZF will be detrimental to investment decisions.

“We already saw a number of projects pending final investment decisions being shelved in the aftermath of MEPC extraordinary session last October, so this is a real risk that the sector faces.

“Only with the adoption ‘as is’ and as soon as possible does the IMO have a chance to meet its objectives from the Revised GHG strategy for zero- or near-zero emission fuels making up 5-10% of the shipping fuel mix by 2030.”

Addressing the consequences for lower-income and climate-vulnerable countries if a stable revenue mechanism is removed, Spiegelenberg and Smith added: “In the scenario where a single tiered GFS architecture is adopted, revenues will be of lower magnitude compared to ‘as is’ and very constrained to support an equitable transition due to the competition that the lower revenues will have for rewarding ZNZ fuel.

“In the scenario where an NZF without economic elements is adopted, there will be a complete loss of a dedicated funding stream to support a just and equitable transition, or even an effective incentive structure for transition more generally.

“Furthermore, this will create strong justifications for national and regional regulations, which in turn will generate less equitable outcomes for lower-income countries because economic measures may be imposed on their shipping routes, and these countries are unlikely to reap the benefits of regional revenues generated within, for example, the EU, potentially driving up their maritime transport costs.”

The brief concludes that adopting the NZF ‘as is’ in November 2026 presents the lowest transition risk, warning that prolonged delay could lead to a disorderly, expensive and inequitable transition.