Following the IMO’s Maritime Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 84 meeting, 27 April to 1 May, US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) chair Laura DiBella declared that a “silent majority finally found its voice”.

Fresh from the success of stalling the approval of the Net Zero Framework (NZF) at the MEPC’s Extraordinary meeting in October, DiBella and the US delegation believed they had momentum in their attempts to sink the NZF supported by Russia and Saudi Arabia, among others.

Instead, opposition to the NZF has proven fragile, while its proponents have gained confidence, as the industry looks for a clear path to decarbonisation. Vessel owners need certainty in the market to make investment decisions on newbuildings and retrofits, rather than trying to guess which fuel will dominate.

Thomas Kazakos, Secretary General of the International Chamber of Shipping, summed up the mood, saying dialogue at MEPC 84 was “constructive”, as technical meetings progressed “serenely onwards”, while politicians failed to agree.

This situation has changed with 59 member states affirming support for the NZF, several more than had done at the previous Extraordinary Session in October. Technical discussions are said to be “progressing”, by another insider source, confident that the regulation will be approved at the next Extraordinary Session in November.

Saudi Arabia had made its voice heard in October, when a last-minute intervention derailed a week’s discussion. The Kingdom is now espousing the Panama-Liberia-Argentina ‘Panlibarg’ proposal, in which emissions-intensity targets would be dynamically adjusted according to the commercial availability of fuel.

This would slow adoption of new fuels and effectively re-risk investments, but the argument underlying Panlibarg is that regulation should not mandate fuels that barely exist.

It would leave LNG – a fossil fuel – the de-facto ‘alternative fuel’ option in the medium-term. Though it demonstrates a reduction of CO₂ in certain engines, many say it defeats the goal of the NZF to precipitate a switch to non-fossil sources.

As evidence mounts that the US delegation can no longer achieve its stated aim of cancelling the NZF, carbon regulation, what may be more problematic is the much-debated carbon fund.

A ‘carbon-tax’ is a key funding component for maritime decarbonisation, but the US believes that a move to an ‘explicit acceptance’ model, wherein any legislation is presumed not to have entered into force until two-thirds of IMO member states back the proposals, would likely stall the carbon pricing.

Remarks in a closed-door session preceding MEPC from US Coast Guard Rear Adm. Wayne Arguin, quoted in Politico, speak to the US’ expectations for such an outcome happening.

“… there is a clear, strong and sizeable bloc of countries opposed to the NZF and no prospect of achieving consensus around that proposal.”

Facing intense pressure from opposing member states many developing economies, nonetheless, supported the NZF.

Fiji – much of which stands to be underwater within a century unless climate action is taken – called the NZF the “only politically viable option” for a “timely decarbonisation". The Solomon Islands said the framework already "represents a careful balance of interests… supported by a large and diverse number of member states".

In a submission ahead of MEPC 84, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana and Togo called for fair representation and share of NZF funding for African countries. And African delegations highlighted a Euro-centric bias in assumptions over infrastructure and the availability of fuels, which needed to be amended.

IMO actions have been informed, at least in part, by an aim to make aggressive regional regimes such as the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) redundant, thereby avoiding a patchwork of regional regulations.

The US for its part, called for a withdrawal of the ETS “to avoid a duplicative system of frameworks and agreements”, and “additional layers of carbon trading or pricing in the existence of aggressive EU schemes.”

As MEPC convened Ember Energy released a report showing how many African countries, including Togo, Kenya, Morocco, Namibia, and Ethiopia are avoiding the ‘fossil detour’ – a trap of debt and dependency on foreign resources – by leapfrogging straight into renewable energy and electrification.

Meanwhile, green campaigners countered concerns raised regarding the costs to developing economies by pointing out the high cost of America’s port fees, flag limitations and Iranian adventures were costing.

“Everyone pays, petrostates and oil companies cash in,” declared one. A sentiment expressed frequently throughout the week was that the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz and subsequent soaring price of fuels will do more to incentivise green shipping than whatever is decided at IMO.