IMO Fails to Adopt and Adjourns for One Year the Net-Zero Framework

At the end of what may have been one of the most contentious weeks in the history of the International Maritime Organization, the member states voted to adjourn discussions for one year on the Net-Zero Framework, which was designed to create a global standard for shipping decarbonization. The IMO emphasized that work would continue to create consensus and, in the interim, amendments to MARPOL would proceed, but the news drew wide condemnation and criticism of the IMO, with a few, namely the United States, celebrating the vote as a “win.”

The Net-Zero Framework had been formulated in April 2025 after an equally contentious session, but in the end won the support from 63 member states to move it forward. Shipping was recognized as the first industry to propose a global approach to decarbonization. The framework would have also created the first global carbon pricing mechanism for any industry. It would also have provided clarity for an industry that needs uniformity and a global approach to regulation.

The IMO’s leaders had admitted that more work needed to be done to complete the framework. However, going into this week, they were still confident that the support existed. Normally, the IMO seeks to make agreements by consensus and avoids giving any appearance of disunity by carrying measures only with thin majorities.

“While the Net-Zero Framework is far from perfect, adopting it would have been an important step to deliver on the IMO’s commitment and send key signals to an industry that was not only asking for a global framework, but actively supported this deal,” said John Maggs, the Clean Shipping Coalition’s Representative at the IMO.

During the session, many national delegates reserved their positions, perhaps nervous after Donald Trump posted the day before the vote that he was bitterly opposed to what he described as “this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping,” and the creation of a “Green New Scam Bureaucracy” to spend money on “Green dreams.”

Behind the scenes, the United States threatened in the run-up to the meeting to impose tariffs and port taxes to counteract the measure, regarding it as a threat to consumers and to the competitiveness of the U.S. merchant fleet that Trump is seeking to bolster. Other nations, including Saudi Arabia, proposed amendments while there were growing reports of bullying and “undiplomatic” efforts.

Attempts to change delegates’ minds continued throughout the morning today, October 17, at the committee session and over lunchtime, made it clear to those supporting adoption of the Net-Zero Framework the risk they would not win a vote with sufficient authority. Within the IMO, plenary votes can be overturned if states representing more than 50 percent of registered tonnage subsequently object in writing.

At the IMO Secretariat’s suggestion, the meeting then took a vote and adopted a proposal to adjourn the question for one year, with many countries that had not declared their position voting in favor of the postponement. The final vote was 57 countries in favor of the delay and 49 against the delay.

In the run-up to the vote, the United States, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Liberia, and Saudi Arabia were amongst those opposed to the adoption of the framework. China, the European Union, Brazil, and the United Kingdom were openly in favor, but Cyprus, Greece, and Malta threatened to break the European 27-strong bloc vote by voting against or abstaining.

The view is that whereas a failure to secure support for a measure would be its death sentence, the nature of debate at the extraordinary session suggests that those supporting the measure will now seek to modify it, in order to win stronger support in one year’s time. They may regard securing an adjournment as a victory, given there was a strong possibility that if the framework had been put to a vote, it would have been defeated. Those opposed to the framework appeared keener to kill it off than to see it modified.

IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, who had been confident of the adoption, was largely silent after the vote. He said it would take time to regroup. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, called it “another huge win,” while U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz posted a message on social media saying that with the U.S. leadership, they had prevented a “massive UN tax hike.”

The NGO community and environmental organizations were quick to react, along with many parts of the shipping industry. The International Chamber of Shipping, which had been a strong supporter of the carbon fees and fund program, said it was disappointed and highlighted “the industry needs clarity.” It has raised the fear of many that individual nations or regions might move ahead, creating a patchwork of regulations on the industry.

The European Shipping Council highlighted that the industry is international and requires meaningful global regulations to guide its decarbonization. They said it is essential for a “level playing field” to deliver the energy transition of international shipping.

The influential group Danish Shipping issued a statement saying that “geopolitics derailed the green transition,” and expressing its disappointment. “This is not what we came for. We came here to finally conclude a crucial climate agreement for international shipping,” said Danish Shipping’s CEO, Anne H. Steffensen.

Smaller and island nations had been relentless in their advocacy. The Minister for Climate Change for the Republic of Vanuatu said they had been reluctant supporters, highlighting that the framework “lacks the ambition,” but was a significant step. He said the delay is “unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change.”

Andrew Fortescue, who was a strong supporter and advocate for decarbonization efforts, spoke out against the bullying that was going on. His company later issued a statement highlighting its disappointment and saying, “today’s outcome represents a lost opportunity for the world.”

“By delaying adoption of its Net Zero Framework, IMO has today squandered an important opportunity to tackle global shipping's contribution to climate breakdown,” said Maggs of the Clean Shipping Coalition. “With climate warming impacts being felt everywhere on Earth, kicking this decision down the road is simply evading reality.”

The UCL Energy Institute noted that the IMO and the member states had failed to complete the next milestone forward in the program toward the entry into force of the Net Zero framework, leaving many to question what is next.

“This is catastrophic for confidence, and therefore also for the equitable and ambitious decarbonization we need,” said Dr. Tristan Smith, Professor of Energy and Transport at UCL Energy Institute Shipping & Oceans Research Group. “We will now have to double down on other means to drive shipping GHG reduction and energy transition.”

Maggs at the Clean Shipping Coalition said there is no time to waste, and the focus shifts to the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee and its MPEC 84 session in April 2026. They are calling for focusing attention on transforming the CII into the energy efficiency measurement needed for the industry.

The World Shipping Council, which represents the container carriers, said it recognizes the challenges and complexity of the negotiations. It said the IMO remains the right place to deliver a global solution and that they should use the next year to close the remaining gaps and ensure an efficient global agreement.