What if the deal meant to decarbonise shipping ends up prolonging its dependence on fossil fuels? EU Perspectives spoke to T&E’s Felix Klann about the IMO deadlock and why compromise do more harm than good.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN agency responsible for international shipping, is working on a Net-Zero Framework to put the sector on track for net-zero emissions by 2050. But after three rounds of talks, member states have failed to reach an agreement on the framework.
Felix Klann, Shipping Policy Officer at Transport & Environment (T&E), is closely following the negotiations. He argues that compromise has its limits: further concessions on targets and ambition could leave the industry with “very limited incentives to decarbonise”.
After three meetings without progress, is a credible global agreement to decarbonise shipping by 2050 still realistically achievable at the IMO meeting in November?
Indeed, member states were not able to reach an agreement during the last meeting. Large divides remain between the majority support for the NZF and a loud minority opposing a robust climate framework. Additionally, multiple alternative proposals were introduced. While many of them use the NZF as a basis and offer concessions, none of them achieved a clear majority.
Given the fundamental opposition by the US, Saudi, and a few other governments, any further compromise on targets and ambition would lose sight of the incentives and clarity the industry needs to invest in clean solutions.
Under these conditions, it is unlikely that an agreement can be reached with only two and a half months remaining until the next meeting. It is more likely that entirely new policies will be proposed. It will not only delay the process, but seriously question the IMO’s ability to meet its own climate targets.
T&E says the EU showed willingness to compromise, including on the centralised fund and greenhouse gas targets. How far can the EU compromise before the agreement becomes too weak to deliver meaningful decarbonisation?
While the EU, alongside some other member states, offered some concessions and showed openness to further compromises, they also set out their clear requirements for a level of ambition that can plausibly achieve the long-term decarbonisation.
Given the fundamental opposition by the US, Saudi, and a few other governments, any further compromise on targets and ambition would lose sight of the incentives and clarity the industry needs to invest in clean solutions.
It would favor long-term reliance on fossil LNG and harmful biofuels to secure a deal on paper, but with very limited incentives to decarbonise. This should not be an acceptable outcome.
If the IMO remains deadlocked, what regional measures should the EU consider? Could stronger unilateral EU action create competitiveness or carbon leakage risks for European shipping?
The EU already introduced its maritime climate policy framework. FuelEU Maritime, AFIR, the RED, and the EU ETS set long-term incentives and support structures for the sector.
It will be important to improve, refine, and expand these policies within EU jursdiction. And invite other governments and regions to do the same if discussions at the IMO continue to be locked in a stalemate.
It would favor long-term reliance on fossil LNG and harmful biofuels to secure a deal on paper, but with very limited incentives to decarbonise.
The Commission’s proposal for the ETS acknowledges the importance of its framework in offering an adjustment of the ETS only if a global framework can be agreed, and only where the two systems overlap.
T&E estimates that oil dependence cost shipping around €340 million per day during the Hormuz crisis. Has energy security now become as strong an argument for maritime decarbonisation as climate policy itself?
The price jumps in fossil marine fuels and continued dependence on few producing regions and import channels is increasingly seen as a serious vulnerability of European energy and fuel systems. Greater energy independence should be an argument to diversify, substitute, and replace not only shipping’s dirty fossil base.
Many options from electrification to green e-fuels offer cleaner alternatives, but political commitment and support are needed to secure the initial investments to establish them. It is not a question of either energy security or climate benefits. It is a clear chance to invest in both at the same time.
