The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) met in an extraordinary session from 14–17 October to ratify the NZF, which had been provisionally approved in April 2025 after more than a decade of negotiation. The framework would have set mandatory global rules for cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships, including a fuel standard and an emissions pricing mechanism – making shipping the world’s first industry with an internationally mandated net zero pathway.

However, following a tense week of negotiations, instead of adopting the framework, the MEPC voted to adjourn discussions and reconvene in 2026 ‘to continue work towards consensus’. In the meantime, an intersessional working group will continue drafting technical guidelines for implementing the NZF.

Political divisions sink progress

Behind the diplomatic language, the collapse of the talks revealed intense political manoeuvring. According to reports from delegates and observers, the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia led a successful push to delay adoption. The US delegation reportedly warned that approving the deal would ‘harm global consumers’ and hinted at trade repercussions for countries voting in favour.

US President Donald Trump, who returned to office in January 2025, is understood to have described the framework as a ‘green scam’ and threatened tariffs on nations supporting it. Several island states, including the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, changed their positions after US lobbying, while China shifted from supporting the April agreement to backing a delay, according to the BBC. The UK and most EU member states had pressed to proceed with adoption, but Greece broke ranks and abstained, further fracturing the bloc’s stance.

Speaking after the MEPC session, Thomas Kazakos, Secretary General of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), said the industry was ‘disappointed’ that member states had not been able to agree a way forward. ‘Industry needs clarity to make the investments needed to decarbonise the maritime sector in line with the goals set out in the IMO’s GHG strategy,’ he added.

Environmental campaigners were more forthright. Dr Alison Shaw, IMO Manager at Transport & Environment (T&E), said the delay left ‘the shipping sector drifting in uncertainty’. She continued: ‘But this week has also shown that there is clear desire to clean up shipping, even in the face of US bullying… Climate-ambitious countries must use this momentum to build a strong majority in support of meaningful decarbonisation. They will be the ones that benefit from the economy of tomorrow, not the geopolitical power games of the past.’

A decade in the making

The NZF had been heralded as a breakthrough when provisionally approved at the MEPC 83 session in April. It was set to be adopted as a new Chapter 5 of MARPOL Annex VI – the IMO’s key treaty on preventing air pollution from ships.

The framework would have required shipowners to transition to cleaner fuels from 2028, backed by a global emissions pricing mechanism. Non-compliant vessels would have been required to buy carbon credits from compliant ones, creating a market-based incentive for decarbonisation.

Shipping accounts for about 3% of global emissions and remains one of the few major sectors without binding climate rules. Around 90% of world trade moves by sea, and emissions have continued to climb as global demand for goods grows.

IMO Secretary General Arsenio Dominguez struck a diplomatic tone, saying the adjournment would ‘allow member states more time to refine the framework and build a broader consensus’. However, many delegates were reported to have privately described the outcome as a setback that risks slowing momentum just as the sector begins investing in low-carbon fuels such as green methanol and ammonia.

Industry uncertainty and technical challenges

Energy analysts say the extra year could be both a curse and an opportunity. A report by Rystad Energy, published just before the meeting, warned that the current NZF draft contained ‘critical gaps’ that could undermine its effectiveness.

Its maritime decarbonisation team identified mismatches between clean-fuel availability and projected demand, infrastructure bottlenecks and imbalances in the proposed carbon-trading system.

Under the NZF’s credit mechanism, compliant ships could generate Surplus Units (SUs), while non-compliant vessels would produce Remedial Units (RUs), which could be offset by buying SUs from others. But Rystad’s modelling suggested that demand for offsets – especially Tier II RUs – would far exceed supply until at least 2035, pushing carbon prices to their ceiling and risking market instability.

Rystad warned that while the cost gap between conventional and low-carbon fuels will narrow over time, a poorly designed reward system could turn into a penalty-collection scheme rather than an incentive for progress.

Commenting after the announced postponement of the NZF, Junlin Yu, Rystad’s Vice President of Supply Chain Research, said that the delay would give the IMO time to ‘refine’ ambiguous elements and create a more ‘practical and equitable framework’.