What Is the IMO Net-Zero Framework?
The IMO Net-Zero Framework (NZF) is the most equitable and climate-ambitious framework the International Maritime Organization has yet agreed upon for decarbonizing global shipping. Approved in April 2025, the NZF remains the basis for ongoing negotiations.
The NZF combines a greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism with a dedicated Net-Zero Fund. Revenues from that fund help countries transition to cleaner shipping technologies. Under the framework's emissions target system, ships that outperform their targets earn credits; those that fall short must either purchase credits or pay remedial charges. As targets tighten over time, the financial incentive to adopt zero- and near-zero emission fuels and technologies grows proportionally.
Why Do the IMO's 2026 Decarbonization Targets Matter Now?
The urgency to decarbonize shipping has never been greater. In 2024, global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrialized levels for the first time—a stark warning of the trajectory the world is on. Every fraction of a degree brings more extreme weather, greater pressure on food and ocean systems, and higher costs for communities and economies alike.
Despite this, countries are now debating whether to adopt the NZF as agreed, amend it, or replace it entirely. The answer will shape whether the International Maritime Organization's decarbonization targets for 2026 and the following decade remain on track—or are pushed back.
What Proposals Are Currently on the Table?
Four distinct proposals have been submitted to the IMO ahead of the adoption deadline, each representing a different level of climate ambition.
Liberia's Proposal: The Weakest Alternative
Liberia's proposal would significantly change the NZF's balance. Rather than relying on a combination of emission trading and fixed remedial payments, it would place greater emphasis on trading surplus units between ships and remove mandatory payments into a Net-Zero Fund. Instead of generating a dedicated fund to support a just and equitable transition, payments would largely flow between companies. If buying emission credits becomes cheaper than upgrading ships, investment in zero- and near-zero emission fuels would also weaken—directly undermining IMO decarbonization targets.
Brazil's Proposal: Delayed Ambition
Brazil's proposal retains the overall architecture of the NZF but delays the early decarbonization reduction threshold in exchange for steeper reductions later. While this approach may be more politically palatable in the short term by lowering immediate costs, the delay would affect both climate reduction ambition and early investment in zero- and near-zero emission technologies—both of which are critical in this decade. It would also postpone revenues to the Net-Zero Fund, making the transition harder and more expensive for all parties than under the currently approved NZF.
Tuvalu's Proposal: The Most Ambitious Path
Tuvalu has put forward the most ambitious proposal, requiring all GHG emissions above zero to incur a charge. Estimates suggest this approach would raise more than US$100 billion per year during the 2030s, compared with approximately US$12 billion per year under the current NZF. This level of revenue would allow shipping to meet IMO decarbonization targets while generating the funds needed for a just and equitable transition. However, the proposal is politically contentious, as it would impose higher costs from the outset and may be opposed by the US and petrostates.
All three proposals above were submitted within the required IMO deadline and are therefore eligible for adoption later in 2026.
Japan's Post-Deadline Proposal
Japan has tabled a proposal that would allow shipowners to direct part of their compliance payments toward projects of their own choosing, rather than contributing to a dedicated IMO fund for a just and equitable transition. This would make funding less predictable, reduce support to countries most in need, and risk slowing the transition while making it more expensive over time. Because Japan's proposal was submitted after the deadline, however, it cannot be voted on for adoption this year.
Which Countries Support Preserving the Current Framework?
Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have stated their support for preserving the Net-Zero Framework as agreed in April 2025. These countries argue that the urgency of the climate crisis calls for implementation—not a reopening of negotiations that took years to conclude.
Is the Current IMO Net-Zero Framework Enough?
The current NZF is not perfect. It is unlikely to deliver every emissions reduction needed to fully meet IMO climate goals, and it will need to be—and can be—strengthened over time. However, the framework already contains the foundations of a global system that rewards cleaner shipping, creates predictable investment signals, and supports countries that cannot make this transition alone.
Countries can and should debate the pace of implementation and the level of ambition. What they should not do is weaken the greenhouse gas pricing mechanism or the Net-Zero Fund. Doing so would not make the transition cheaper—it would make the outcome more uncertain, less equitable, and harder to deliver.
As the climate crisis accelerates, the question is no longer whether shipping must decarbonize. It is whether governments have the political courage to protect the framework they have spent years negotiating. The people and the planet cannot afford another year of delay.
By Anais Rios, Senior Shipping Policy Officer, Seas at Risk
Copyright: Splash247
