The delay has confused a sector that plans shipbuilding years in advance. “Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonise the maritime sector,” said Thomas Kazakos, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping.
Pressure from the US
Many delegates attributed the outcome to the US officials’ campaign to derail the framework. This included threats before the meeting to impose visa restrictions on mariners from nations that supported the deal, additional fees if ships from those nations docked at US ports, and even sanctions on officials from countries supporting what the US called “a global carbon tax on Americans”.
Delegates from a Pacific island nation told Dialogue Earth that the capitals of several Pacific states received pressure from high-level US officials, urging them to withdraw support. Mäkinen shared a similar observation, saying the targets for US lobbying were small island states and “big flag states” where large numbers of ships are registered. Many delegates could be seen huddling in private discussions on the IMO hall floor.
“There was so much politics involved and that’s why it was extraordinary,” Mäkinen adds. “We couldn’t discuss and negotiate only on the basis of technical issues of the proposed regulations.”
Leaving no one behind
US coercion was not the only concern, however. Representatives from developing countries, including small island nations from the Pacific and the Caribbean, raised questions about the framework’s impact on shipping costs and food security.
During coffee breaks, Dialogue Earth spoke to several chatty delegates in the buzzing main chamber. They said they were troubled by a lack of clarity on the Net Zero Fund’s distribution and how it could help offset the framework’s negative impacts. A study estimates that US$11-12 billion could be raised annually by the framework between 2028 and 2030, but the implementation guidelines that address revenue-sharing are still under discussion.
Benoit Bardouille, Dominica’s ambassador and adviser to its prime minister, said that his Caribbean state, which is moving toward 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030, supports the shipping sector being decarbonised, “but it must be done with a certain level of soberness”.
Bardouille, who represented his state at the IMO meeting, said many Caribbean states are heavily reliant on imports. He fears the framework will raise shipping costs, leading to spiralling inflation that is passed onto consumers.
Pawa Limu, Papua New Guinea’s delegate, shared similar concerns. Both Bardouille and Limu want more clarity on how money raised by the IMO scheme will be shared to drive a fair and just transition away from fossil fuels – one that doesn’t leave vulnerable states behind.
Tristan Smith, a professor of energy and transport at University College London, said such worries are “very legitimate”. This year his research group estimated that transportation costs for global trade could rise by around 5 per cent in 2028 to at least 20 per cent by 2035, depending on how strict the rules become.
Much of the transition is predicated on shipping that runs on relatively cheap oil shifting in a significant fashion to more expensive but greener fuels such as green hydrogen, methanol and ammonia.
Smith, who specialises in global shipping decarbonisation, stresses that the IMO cannot achieve its pledge to reach net zero by 2050 without paying a price. “You always have inflationary effects because we’re … moving from a low-cost energy source to a higher cost energy source,” he said. “The low-cost energy source has high environmental costs, but in our economy today, we don’t put a price on those costs.”
Lloyd Fikiasi, a delegate from Vanuatu – the Pacific nation known for championing climate actions – said those unpriced costs should not be underestimated.
“We look beyond those economic impacts. It’s [a matter of] survival. If we don’t take any actions to address greenhouse gas emissions, we will lose our future,” said Fikiasi.
He believes that the impacts of climate change on food security, migration and many more problems far exceed the economic costs of the shipping framework. Vanuatu abstained on the approval of the plan in April, as it said the framework is not ambitious enough to meet the IMO’s net-zero target.
Advocates remain hopeful
After the vote to delay the framework, member states continued discussions in London on implementation guidelines. These will dictate critical elements of the plan including how the Net-Zero Fund will operate and how low-carbon marine fuels will be certified.
Proponents hope that discussions such as these before the next crunch vote on the overall framework will help resolve the outstanding concerns.
Smith remains confident that a majority of the IMO member nations support the framework, even though many want more time and clarity on specific elements, or adjustments to how it will work. Fikiasi is less certain, and worries that geopolitics could still stymie agreement next year.
Mäkinen said she remains hopeful even though she too doubts that the political pressure seen this month will disappear in a year.
“I have experienced many negotiations [in which] I wasn’t exactly sure where we would end up. But they always have a happy ending we could agree on,” she said. “I have trust in the IMO miracles.”
This article was originally published on Dialogue Earth under a Creative Commons licence.
