The maritime community is once again turning its attention to the Net-Zero Framework, which is set to be reviewed in October.
Although the war in Iran has captured global attention—particularly due to the significant disruptions it has caused to maritime oil transport—proposals submitted by member states regarding the roadmap for the green transition of shipping in the coming decades will once again be examined, in London, within the framework of the deliberations of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). No agreement was reached at the previous meeting, following a strong intervention by the United States in the previously agreed text, which had provided for strict taxation on conventional fuels and the establishment of a decarbonization fund within the IMO.
This outcome was also commented on at the time by the President of the Union of Greek Shipowners, Melina Travlou, who noted: “The decision to postpone at the IMO constitutes a new opportunity to shape a sustainable and effective international framework that will guide shipping safely and realistically towards the green transition. The failure to reach agreement highlighted the divisions caused by the proposed Net-Zero Framework regulation, in which the positions and proposals of the shipping industry were not adequately taken into account.”
As the countdown to the upcoming October meeting begins, a total of 27 shipping companies—including Greek firms—as well as organizations such as flag states and classification societies, have prepared an open letter to the IMO. Following last year’s failed negotiations, they called for serious consideration of alternative proposals that have been put forward. The letter, which has come to the attention of “N”, stated: “The undersigned stakeholders, representing the shipping industry across its full spectrum, respectfully call upon the Member States of the International Maritime Organization to consider alternative proposals to the Net-Zero Framework (NZF). In October 2025, the prospect of adopting the NZF raised significant concerns among stakeholders. The advancement of a framework that challenges the scope and mandate of the IMO, amid clearly insufficient consensus among Member States, led to a deadlock during the MEPC session.”
The shipping industry relies on the IMO as the primary global regulator of maritime transport, capable of ensuring a level playing field in the development and implementation of international emissions regulations. This role depends on the Organization’s ability to achieve broad consensus among its members. In this context, the letter respectfully calls on Member States and the Organization to take into account the long-term credibility and effectiveness of the IMO by seriously examining the alternative proposals submitted. These alternatives offer a constructive way to bridge differences and provide a forward path that aligns the level of ambition with proven market readiness. In this spirit, it is proposed that the MEPC 84 session be treated as an opportunity for alignment and progress towards consensus, as well as for identifying practical solutions for the shipping industry.
The proposal of the three
A characteristic example of the alternative proposals submitted is that of Liberia, together with Panama and Argentina. The three countries proposed replacing the NZF with a fuel standard that does not include carbon pricing. Specifically, they proposed:
- A realistic and measurable linkage between greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and market readiness, ensuring that targets evolve based on actual cost, availability, and penetration of low-carbon fuels.
- An objective and transparent methodology for incorporating new fuels, with clear and evidence-based criteria, enabling stakeholders to understand when and how fuels meet the required standards.
- Enhanced investment predictability for the sector, providing stable signals for fleet renewal planning, fuel procurement, and infrastructure development.
- Genuine technological neutrality, with incentives proportional to lifecycle emission reductions (well-to-wake – WtW), regardless of energy source.
- Realistic, achievable, and cost-effective obligations based on continuous improvement.
- Incentives for over-compliance through pooling mechanisms or equivalent tools.
No establishment of an IMO fund or any other mechanism involving the direct collection and allocation of revenues.
Promotion of energy efficiency improvements through synergies with the existing CII framework and encouragement of continuous optimization at fleet level.
Incentives for the adoption of innovative technologies, such as onboard carbon capture systems (OCCS), wind-assisted propulsion, and other emerging solutions capable of substantially reducing emissions intensity.
“To achieve consensus and balance ambition with feasibility, equity, and geopolitical considerations, the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework should be replaced by the proposed framework, which foresses the periodic adjustment of the target trajectory in line with the demonstrated penetration of low-carbon fuels in shipping, supported by clear, evidence-based technical criteria relating to affordability, availability, and scalability,” the proposal concluded.
