Has the IMO’s Vote Put Trade’s Low-Carbon Future on Hold?
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has voted to delay adoption of its Net-Zero Framework (NZF) by one year, pushing a landmark decision on maritime decarbonisation into 2026.
The motion, tabled by Singapore and brought to a vote by Saudi Arabia, passed on the final day of the Marine Environment Protection Committee’s second extraordinary session (MEPC/ES.2), held from 14 to 17 October 2025 in London.
The outcome was close enough to raise eyebrows across boardrooms and bridge decks.
Votes were: Yes 57, No 49, Abstention 21, with 8 not present. A simple majority of 54 was required.
The extraordinary session is now adjourned for 12 months, with the Secretariat tasked to reconvene in a year.
In his closing remarks, IMO SG Arsenio Dominguez said: "I always look for the silver linings in things. Even though you have difference of opinions you all spoke in support of the work of this organization. I will ask you to reflect on this session. The outcome is your decision.
"This was not the normal IMO meeting and I know that it is a sensitive topic for many and important topic for all. The reason why I ask you not to clap is because there are no winners and losers in this session.
"Now you have one year you will continue to work on several aspects of these amendments. You have one year to negotiate and talk and come to consensus that you make reference to.
"As we come to an end my plea to you is not to repeat the way we have approached this meeting in other discussions for future discussions. But to continue to be proactive. Let’s all take this moment to learn from this come back fresh on one year ready to negotiate and take the next steps needed to address the goals which were set in the 2023 GHG strategy that you all agreed to."
At stake is a framework that would bite from 2028 and apply to ships over 5,000 gross tonnes.
The NZF sets binding targets to cut the carbon intensity of marine fuels and establishes a market mechanism of credits and penalties. Ships that overshoot emission limits would have to buy “remedial units” while low-emission vessels can earn and trade surplus credits. The money would then flow into an IMO Net-Zero Fund intended to back clean-fuel adoption and support a just transition in developing countries.
According to the Global Strategic Communications Council, a clear majority of countries had been ready to sign off after an in-principle vote in April, when 63 backed the package - including the EU27, Brazil, China, India, Canada, the UK, Korea and Japan - against 16 opposed. This momentum faltered this week as geopolitical pressure rose and procedural tactics took centre stage.
In the run-up and throughout the meeting, the US hardened its line. Delegations from developing countries reported “bullying”, “unprecedented” and “undiplomatic” pressure on capitals, with threats of tariffs and sanctions if they supported the framework.
US President Donald Trump then went public, posting on Truth Social: “I am outraged that the International Maritime Organization is voting in London this week to pass a global Carbon Tax.”
The post escalated, casting the NZF as a Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping and warning that the US would not adhere “in any shape or form”. He also urged member states to “stand with the US and vote No” at Friday’s session.
Washington and Riyadh additionally sought to recast the IMO’s typical consensus-based adoption into a more “explicit” process that would add hurdles for implementation, particularly for developing economies. While that procedural change did not carry the day, the broader delay does much the same thing by buying time.
Whether that time enables consensus or simply intensifies lobbying is now the central question. Some delegations argue a pause could tighten technical guidance and shore up political support for a law of this scale. Others fear the US will use the window to increase pressure on vulnerable states and fracture the coalition that formed in April.
An 11 August submission from the US argued that the NZF would create a de facto global carbon tax, with inflationary knock-ons for consumers and that zero- and near-zero (ZNZ) fuels remain commercially scarce at scale. It said trajectories for the GHG Fuel Intensity (GFI) metric risked penalising transitional fuels such as LNG and certain biofuels, despite their immediate emissions gains and investment already sunk by owners.
The paper also warned of “excessive” revenue accumulation in the Net-Zero Fund - “at least in the tens of billions of dollars” - without clear guardrails for management and disbursement, and called for guidelines that keep revenue tied tightly to reducing maritime emissions and easing transition costs rather than broader redistribution.
For supply chain leaders, the delay changes timelines but not direction.
The regulatory arc still bends toward carbon pricing and lifecycle fuel metrics. Procurement teams should assume Scope 3 exposure from ocean freight will face a rising carbon cost, even if the start date is uncertain.
Shippers with diversified fuel strategies and credible efficiency programmes will keep a trading advantage when credit markets arrive. Charterers should tighten clauses that allocate carbon price and performance risk. Ports and 3PLs investing in bunkering and berth-side readiness for methanol, ammonia and shore power have another year to align capex with likely rules.
When the MEPC reconvenes next year, the same fundamentals will be waiting; a fund to accelerate fuel transition and a sector that moves 80% of global trade trying to square climate ambition with affordability and energy security.
Whether the extra time delivers clarity or simply a bigger storm will depend on what happens in capitals - and in the boardroom - over the next 12 months.
