The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Net-Zero Framework, shipping's proposed binding scheme to price and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has spent the past ten months in a state of repeated delay, shifting coalitions and open disagreement over its core architecture. With the next negotiating session due in September and a further vote expected around November, this is a fuller account of how the dispute has unfolded and where it currently stands.
What the NZF Actually Is
The Net-Zero Framework combines a global fuel standard, requiring ships to progressively reduce greenhouse gas fuel intensity (GFI) on a well-to-wake basis, with a carbon pricing and reward mechanism, designed to be added as a new Chapter 5 to MARPOL Annex VI. It would apply to all ocean-going ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, covering roughly 85% of international shipping's CO2 emissions. Fleets that outperform the GFI standard can sell Surplus Units to fleets that fall short; underperforming fleets that don't buy enough Surplus Units instead pay a Remedial Unit penalty, with proceeds flowing into an IMO Net-Zero Fund intended to support zero and near-zero fuel uptake and a "just and equitable" transition for developing states.
April 2025: Approval, But Not Adoption
Member states approved the NZF as draft MARPOL amendments at MEPC 83 in April 2025, by a vote of 63 in favor, 16 against, and 24 abstentions. Approval at this stage set the text as the basis for formal adoption, but did not itself bring the framework into force; that step was scheduled for an extraordinary session later in the year.
October 2025: The Adjournment, and Who Moved
That extraordinary session, MEPC/ES.2, met from 14 to 17 October 2025 to consider formal adoption. Instead, a motion to adjourn the decision by one year, tabled by Singapore and brought to a vote by Saudi Arabia, passed 57 votes to 49, with 21 abstentions and 8 delegations absent, pushing the formal adoption vote to October 2026. The voting breakdown revealed significant shifts from the April approval: China, which had not blocked approval in April, voted for the delay in October; Japan and South Korea abstained, both reversing what had been supportive positions in April; and EU member states Greece and Cyprus also abstained, a break from the EU's usual bloc unity on climate measures that raised questions about how firmly united European support for the framework actually was. Multiple reports described unusually intense lobbying and political pressure surrounding the vote, atypical for the IMO's normally consensus-driven process, with the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and other oil-producing states reported among those pushing for delay.
May 2026: MEPC 84 Confirms the Foundation, But Not the Details
At MEPC 84, held in the following spring, member states agreed that the NZF's original architecture would remain the foundation for continued negotiations, alongside consideration of alternative proposals, rather than being discarded outright. Discussions remained divided on key design elements, particularly the structure of the Net-Zero Fund, and no decisions on core NZF design features were reached at this meeting; delegates instead agreed to hold additional intersessional meetings to continue the technical and political work.
The Alternative Proposal Now on the Table
Argentina, Liberia and Panama, three states that together flag more than 30% of the world fleet by gross tonnage, have circulated a joint alternative proposal intended to replace the approved NZF text. It would remove mandatory carbon pricing and the Remedial Unit penalty structure, tie GHG fuel intensity targets to the actual cost, availability and market share of low-emission fuels rather than fixed reduction trajectories, rely solely on Surplus Unit trading as the compliance mechanism, and eliminate the IMO Net-Zero Fund. The proposal's backers argue the currently approved GFI threshold is too restrictive, estimating it could generate GHG penalties of up to USD 300 billion by 2035, disproportionately borne by small and medium-sized operators.
Where the Opposition Is Concentrated
The US, Saudi Arabia and Russia were among the states most associated with pushing for the October 2025 delay. Separately, industry and technical voices, including a submission from the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) on 6 August 2026, have pushed for the ongoing dispute to be resolved on the basis of comparative technical evidence rather than purely political negotiating positions, ahead of the next Intersessional Working Group session (ISWG-GHG 22) running 1-4 September 2026.
Why This Matters Beyond Shipping Itself
Whether a UN body can hold together a binding, global carbon-pricing mechanism at all, in the face of sustained political pressure from major economies, is the broader question this dispute tests. The outcome will shape how shipowners, fuel suppliers and investors plan around alternative marine fuel adoption over the next several years, and whether a genuinely global standard emerges or the industry instead operates under a patchwork of regional schemes such as the EU ETS and UK ETS, each with different rules and timelines.
Source: European Parliament briefing, Lloyd's List, CIMAC, Ship & Bunker, April 2025-August 2026.
