IMO seeks Net-Zero Framework deal as support grows for GHG standards

International Maritime Organization member states are seeking to compromise on the Net-Zero Framework, with more consensus forming around regulating marine energy's greenhouse gas emissions intensity, a senior official of the UN agency said Oct. 13.

In October 2025, IMO member states voted to delay the framework's adoption by a year amid strong opposition from the US and Middle Eastern oil producers, which argued it will lead to inflation by adding a cost to GHG from ship operations, among other reasons.

Dorota Lost-Sieminska, director of the IMO's Legal Affairs and External Relations Division, said the US and major oil-producing countries had been among the countries pushing for the delay in 2025 but stressed that opposition to the framework did not amount to a rejection of the IMO process itself.

"They didn't say that 'we don't want to negotiate'. They said, yes, 'we will negotiate in the future,'" Lost Sieminska said in the CSN London Maritime Forum.

The US, having rejected the NZF as it sees it as a form of carbon tax proposal, has remained in recent IMO discussions while signalling support for revisions that remove more mandatory financial elements in the regulation.

In another event on Oct. 23, Saudi state carrier Bahri has argued for technology-driven decarbonization for shipping that can facilitate global seaborne trades without disruptions.

"We've been living with the word decarbonization for a while now. It's becoming part of our meetings, part of our plans, part of our investments," Bahri CEO Ahmed Ali Alsubaey said at the WPC Energy Congress. "But it's not a matter whether deep-sea shipping will decarbonize, we will. But can we do it without disrupting the reliability of global trade? That's the key question."

Seeking consensus

The current framework has what member states describe as technical measures, thresholds for marine energy's GHG intensity in the coming years, and economical measures, financial costs for ship emissions exceeding the thresholds.

"We are clear that we need technical measures ... on that, the IMO member states are clear and are on board," Lost-Sieminska said. "With the economic measure, we don't know."

Many analysts and environmentalists said a robust carbon price mechanism is needed to promote industry-wide low-carbon bunker transition, with the costs of sustainable marine fuels much higher than conventional, oil-based bunker due to limited availability.

August's delivered bunker costs for very low sulfur fuel oil were $20.15/gigajoule in Singapore, compared with $48.54/GJ for 100% sustainable methanol, according to the Platts global bunker fuel cost calculator from S&P Global Energy.

"Member states are still negotiating," Lost-Sieminska said. "So I strongly believe that we will find a solution, a compromise. We would like to avoid regional solutions and fragmentation and there is a need to have a global solution."

At the same CSN conference, Karrie Trauth, president of the UK Chamber of Shipping, said shipowners would prefer a global compromise over a fragmented regional framework.

"We'll have compromise," Trauth, who is also Shell's shipping head, said. "It may not be perfect regulation, but actually shipowners would prefer a compromise that is a global set of regulation."