Shipping sector backs an International Maritime Organization (IMO) climate deal, but not all of the details
New analysis from the global think tank InfluenceMap confirms, with detailed evidence, broad public support across the shipping and fuels sectors for a climate deal at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). However, differing advocacy positions on key components of the framework, including the carbon price, fuel standard, and rules for counting fuel emissions, threaten to ...
A global think tank's analysis reveals strong backing from both shipping and fuel industries for the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) climate deal. However, differing opinions on key aspects, such as the carbon price, fuel standard, and emission counting rules, could weaken the proposed framework.
Thirteen companies and industry associations expressed high-level support for the IMO Net Zero Framework (NZF). The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC) have urged governments to adopt the NZF as a balanced regulatory package. European Shipowners (ECSA) emphasized the need for global regulation to achieve shipping's energy transition.
However, since the adoption was postponed in October 2025, major shipping associations like ICS and WSC have become more cautious in their support. They have avoided naming the framework and asked governments to consider all options, leaving room for a weaker deal. This softer messaging may lead to less ambitious proposals, moving the IMO away from its net-zero trajectory agreed upon in its 2023 GHG Strategy.
The NZF consists of two linked parts: a fuel standard that tightens over time and a carbon price on ships that fall short of the standard. InfluenceMap found engagement on these key elements from four industry associations: ICS, WSC, Ipieca, and SEA-LNG. While WSC supported all three elements, ICS generally supported a carbon price but advocated for a weaker fuel standard. Ipieca and SEA-LNG, representing oil and gas and LNG fuel interests, have opposed strict life-cycle rules.
The main areas of contention are carbon pricing, fuel standard, and accounting rules. Carbon pricing sees ICS and WSC backing a carbon price, while ICS proposes a lower price and WSC supports a higher price. The fuel standard is backed by WSC but argued for by ICS with a lower cut in fuel GHG intensity. Accounting rules propose replacing IMO's default values for fossil fuels with averages and allowing certificates to stand in for clean power, making it easier for LNG-powered ships to comply.
Written by urgent.news from Hellenic Shipping News's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
