The IMO's Net-Zero Shipping Framework: Key Questions Answered

At a recent International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting in London, nations worked to revive a stalled agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping. The proposed “net-zero framework” aims to turn a 2023 target into enforceable measures. However, disputes over carbon pricing and opposition from major players like the US caused delays. Below we answer key questions about the framework, its opponents, and what happened at the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC84) meeting.

What is the net-zero framework for shipping?

The net-zero framework is a set of practical measures designed to help the international shipping industry reach its net-zero emissions target, which was agreed by IMO members in 2023. International shipping accounts for over 2% of global CO₂ emissions and is not covered by the Paris Agreement, making IMO action crucial. The framework includes a carbon-pricing mechanism that would place a fee on shipping emissions, along with fuel standards and efficiency rules. It was intended to be formally adopted by countries at the IMO towards the end of 2025, but that process was disrupted.

Why was the framework delayed last year?

In April 2025, nations at the IMO’s MEPC83 meeting in London agreed on the framework text, even though the US withdrew midway through the talks. However, when countries met again in October 2025 for an extraordinary session specifically called to adopt the framework, the US led a concerted effort to reject it. Negotiators accused the US of using “bully-boy” tactics, and the approval was postponed. The session was only meant to handle “extraordinary” maritime environmental crises, but the US opposition turned it into a contentious showdown. Since then, the US, along with other fossil-fuel producers and some industry groups, have pushed to strip the carbon-pricing element from the framework or abandon it entirely.

Who opposes the framework and why?

The main opponents are the United States under the Trump administration, along with several fossil-fuel-producing nations and certain industry groups. They argue that a carbon-pricing mechanism would raise costs for shipping companies and ultimately consumers. Liberia and Panama—two major “flag states” representing about one-third of the world’s commercial vessels—led a counter-proposal, supported by Argentina, that effectively removed carbon pricing from the framework. These opponents claim they are seeking consensus on a simpler approach, but critics say the real goal is to weaken climate action. The framework’s supporters, including Brazil, the European Union, and Pacific island nations, point out that the original deal already represented a careful balance of interests and should not be reopened.

What alternative proposals were discussed at MEPC84?

At the MEPC84 meeting in London in late 2025, the counter-proposal led by Liberia and Panama, along with Argentina, effectively eliminated the carbon-pricing element from the framework. Instead, they advocated for a system based solely on fuel standards and efficiency targets without any economic instrument. This alternative was seen by supporters of the original framework as a step backward. Other fossil-fuel producers and some industry lobby groups supported this stripped-down version. The meeting saw intense debate, but ultimately no single alternative was adopted. The committee instead reaffirmed its commitment to rebuilding consensus on the original framework, with a plan to attempt formal adoption at its December 2026 meeting.

What do supporters of the net-zero framework want?

Supporters—including Brazil, the European Union, Pacific island nations, and many environmental groups—want the framework adopted as originally drafted, with its carbon-pricing mechanism intact. They argue that a price on carbon is essential to drive the shift toward low-emission fuels and technologies. Without it, the shipping industry would lack a strong financial incentive to decarbonize. They also emphasize that the framework was carefully negotiated over years and represents a balanced compromise between developed and developing countries. Supporters view the US-led opposition as an attempt to derail global climate progress, and they insist that reopening the deal would undermine the IMO’s credibility. The final outcome at MEPC84—where the committee agreed to continue working toward adoption—is seen as a victory for these backers, though the delay to December 2026 adds uncertainty.

What was the final outcome from the MEPC84 meeting?

The four-day MEPC84 meeting ended with a mixed result. The framework survived—it was not abandoned or replaced by a weaker alternative. However, the committee did not formally adopt it either. Instead, nations reconfirmed their commitment to rebuilding consensus and will try to approve the framework at the next MEPC meeting in December 2026. The carbon-pricing mechanism remains in the text for now, despite strong US-led opposition. In the meantime, a small intersessional working group will address remaining disagreements, particularly around the pricing mechanism and how revenues would be used. The IMO Secretary-General called the outcome a testament to the resilience of multilateralism, but critics say the two-year delay risks slowing down shipping’s decarbonization at a time when urgent action is needed.