Governments face a critical decision next month on whether to protect the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Net-Zero Framework or reopen a deal that took years to negotiate and risks becoming weaker with each compromise, according to Anais Rios, senior shipping policy officer at Seas at Risk, writing for Splash.

Read also: IMO Warns Ships to Avoid Strait of Hormuz After U.S. Strikes Iran

2026 has so far been marked by climate disasters, including record heatwaves and severe wildfires in Europe, devastating floods in Southern and Western Africa, and increasingly destructive climate extremes worldwide. Despite this, governments are still debating whether to strengthen or weaken the IMO’s climate measures for shipping.

The draft Net-Zero Framework, approved by the IMO in April 2025, remains the basis for negotiations. While not perfect, it is described as the most equitable and climate-ambitious framework agreed upon, yet momentum has stalled. Countries are now debating whether to adopt it as is, amend it, or replace it.

The framework combines a greenhouse gas pricing mechanism with a Net-Zero Fund, with revenues helping countries transition to cleaner shipping. It creates emission targets where ships outperforming their targets earn credits, while those falling short must buy credits or pay remedial charges. As targets tighten, the financial incentive to adopt cleaner fuels and technology grows.

The urgency is underscored by 2024 being the first year global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Every fraction of a degree brings more extreme weather and higher costs for communities and economies.

Among the proposals, the weakest, submitted by Liberia, would shift the balance by emphasizing trading surplus units between ships and removing mandatory payments into a Net-Zero Fund. This would direct payments largely between companies, potentially weakening investment in zero- and near-zero emission fuels if buying credits becomes cheaper than upgrading ships.

Brazil’s proposal retains the framework’s architecture but delays the early decarbonisation reduction threshold in exchange for steeper reductions later. While this might make an agreement more politically acceptable by lowering short-term costs, it would delay critical early investment and postpone fund revenues, making the transition harder and more expensive.

Tuvalu’s most ambitious proposal would charge for all greenhouse gas emissions above zero, potentially raising over US$100 billion per year during the 2030s, compared with around US$12 billion under the current framework. However, it is politically contentious due to higher upfront costs and could face refusal from the US and petrostates.

All these proposals were submitted within the required deadline, making them eligible for adoption later this year. Japan’s proposal, submitted after the deadline, cannot be voted on this year. It would allow shipowners to direct part of their compliance payments to projects of their own choosing, reducing funding predictability and support for countries in need.

Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom agree to preserve the framework as agreed in April 2025, arguing that the climate crisis urgency calls for implementation rather than reopening negotiations.

The current framework, while imperfect, contains the foundations of a global system that rewards cleaner shipping, creates predictable investment signals, and supports countries that cannot do it alone. Weakening the greenhouse gas pricing mechanism or the Net-Zero Fund would not make the transition cheaper but more uncertain, less equitable, and harder to deliver.

As the climate crisis accelerates, the question is no longer whether shipping must decarbonise, but whether governments have the political courage to protect the framework they have spent years negotiating. The people and the planet cannot afford another year of delay.

https://www.indexbox.io/blog/imo-net-zero-framework-a-critical-decision-for-shippings-climate-future/