Policy & Compliance
IMO delays net zero plan adoption: What it means for freight forwarders
After adoption of the International Maritime Organization’s Net Zero Framework was postponed, freight forwarders face increased uncertainty and additional complexity
I n October 2025, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) voted to delay the adoption of the much- anticipated Net Zero Framework for one year. The decision follows months of political pressure and technical debate, highlighting the complex challenges that the maritime sector faces in its transition to low-carbon operations. The framework was initially agreed in draft form in April 2025 at the 83rd session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 83). The framework would have been the first modal global emissions standard, and it was designed to support the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shipping – a sector responsible for around 3% of global GHG emissions. The framework proposed two key measures: a global fuel standard and a carbon pricing mechanism. Fuel standard The fuel standard would have required vessel operators to progressively reduce the carbon intensity of the fuels used in their operations, while the pricing mechanism aimed to penalise higher emitters and reward operators that exceeded performance targets. It is argued that passing the new regulation would have made the business case for moving from predominantly oil-based fuel to low carbon fuels. Although the draft framework received majority approval at MEPC 83, key countries – notably the US and several Gulf states – voiced
“ The decision follows months of political pressure and technical debate, highlighting the complex challenges that the maritime sector faces
strong opposition. Reports suggest that these nations engaged in lobbying to delay the framework’s adoption. The US contended that the framework could increase consumer costs and reportedly threatened to impose tariffs on countries that pushed for its adoption. Meanwhile, other member states raised a number of technical and market concerns, including: • Limited availability of alternative fuels such as methanol, ammonia and green hydrogen.
• Safety considerations surrounding the adoption of new fuels and the need for crew training. • Inadequate bunkering infrastructure to support alternative fuel supply chains. • A potential imbalance in the proposed emissions credit market, where demand for offsets could significantly exceed supply until the mid-2030s. • Uncertainty regarding the distribution of the proposed climate fund.
14 | December 2025
www.bifa.org
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker