From the magazine – Until recently, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) was primarily an extension of the United Nations that developed global regulations for international shipping. But since the last meeting (14-17 October) of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), the IMO seems to have become a pawn in the geopolitical power struggle that has erupted between the US, the EU and China, particularly since the inauguration of US President Trump.
In every issue of SWZ|Maritime, SWZ|Maritime’s editor Antoon Oosting writes an opinion piece under the heading “Markets” about the maritime industry or a particular sector within it. In the November 2025 issue, he discusses the outcome of the latest IMO MEPC meeting and its impact on shipping. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher (the SWZ Foundation), the KNVTS, or other editors.
And it cannot be said often enough that the IMO is an organisation of member states, not of the shipping lobby, as activist NGOs would have us believe. Shipping interest groups only have consultative status as observers. However, countries with large fleets under their flag do have more say than states that do not.
The outcome of the latest MEPC meeting reveals deep divisions among IMO member states on how to proceed with the energy transition of global shipping towards a future around 2050 in which all 100,000 ships on the world’s oceans will no longer emit climate-threatening exhaust gases. With a climate change-denying president in the White House, any attempt to counter this threat is in danger of being shot down. And after Trump had already withdrawn the US from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed in Rio in 1992, it now appears that all of the IMO’s aspirations to do something about climate change are about to be blocked.
Also read: Trump threatens to sabotage clean shipping
Trump’s retaliatory measures
At this year’s April meeting of MEPC83, the number referring to the number of meetings, the basis for a framework for further regulations was agreed upon, known as the Net-Zero Framework (NZF), ready to be finalised at the October meeting. But that was without taking the Trump administration’s opposition into account, which threatened all countries that dared to vote for the NZF with hell and damnation in the form of retaliatory measures involving heavy trade tariffs.
In that respect, the proponents, including of course the Netherlands, the European Commission and most EU member states, can count themselves lucky, because the decision-making process has now only been postponed. After a heated discussion, the decision on the NZF has been postponed for a year, delaying approval until at least March 2028.
This happened in a vote in which the 49 supporters of the NZF, including almost all EU states, were outvoted by 57 member states that opted to postpone the decision. 21 countries abstained from voting. It is striking that Greece and Cyprus, major shipping states, broke with the European bloc and abstained from voting.
No guarantees
Outsiders may wonder whether postponement is such a bad thing. Indeed, there are views that it offers an opportunity to better prepare and balance the proposals for the final regulations. However, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the Trump administration and its supporters, particularly oil states led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, will agree to an amended proposal in October 2026.
For shipping, this means a great deal of uncertainty about what type of propulsion system and fuel to invest in. After all, what will still be economically viable in terms of generating revenue in, say, five, ten, fifteen, twenty and 25 years’ time, which is the average lifespan of a ship?
At a forum held on the occasion of the opening of the Europort trade fair in Rotterdam on Tuesday 4 November, the reaction to the outcome of the MEPC meeting was one of confusion. ‘Shipowners are particularly confused; they don’t know what to do,’ said Jan-Erik Räsänen, CTO of Finnish maritime consultancy and ship design agency Foreship. And Leendert Muller, CEO of the Terneuzen-based towage and salvage company Multraship, said that shipowners are now postponing their investments. ‘We need clarity, not confusion,’ said Muller.
Also read: IMO postpones decision on shipping’s Net-Zero Framework
Seizing opportunities
Meanwhile, China is going its own way. This maritime powerhouse in both shipbuilding and shipping is aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, ten years after Europe. According to Belgian China expert Pascal Coppens, the problem with the proposed IMO regulations is that they are based too much on a “one size fits all” approach. According to Coppens, China is choosing its own path and is not experiencing any delays in the transition to a CO2-neutral economy. This has already been proven by the large-scale application of solar and wind energy and electric cars. ‘They are simply seizing their opportunities,’ said Coppens.
He was supported by Martin Bloem, head of communications at Damen Shipyards. He believes that we should not oppose China as a competitor, but simply seize the opportunities that new technologies offer us, just like the Chinese. Damen itself has just opened a new factory for maritime components. The EU should follow suit and invest heavily in its own industry. If it succeeds, he foresees a bright future for shipbuilding, as there will be an “ocean of opportunities”.
Clean fuels needed
The reaction of the European Shipowners’ Association was therefore predictable: ‘We regret that the approval of the international climate agreement for shipping has been postponed. The IMO Net-Zero Framework is essential to provide the sector with the necessary certainty and to send a strong signal to the market to produce the clean fuels needed to achieve net zero. Shipping is an international sector that needs meaningful global regulation to become low-carbon. Global regulation is essential to ensure a level playing field at international level and to achieve the energy transition of international shipping,’ said Sotiris Raptis, Secretary General of European Shipowners, ECSA.
The NZF includes two key measures: a global fuel standard and a pricing mechanism. The fuel standard requires ships to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuels throughout the supply chain – a “well-to-wake” approach that covers extraction, production and combustion. The pricing mechanism would set fixed costs for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, rewarding ships that use (near-)zero-emission fuels and enabling trading in surplus emission allowances. If adopted, the regulations would have applied to all seagoing ships over 5000 GT – over 85 per cent of the fleet – and would have entered into force in March 2027.
Also read: Dutch navy gets new fleet, but will have to wait for it
Controversial LNG
Incidentally, this “well-to-wake” approach is also a weak point in EU regulations, as it excludes LNG from the possible alternatives. This is despite the fact that many shipowners are having their ships converted to run on the much cleaner LNG.
Just before the MEPC meeting, Japan’s Mitsui OSK Lines announced that it had developed technology that can reduce methane emissions from LNG combustion by as much as 98 per cent, which could prove to be a technological breakthrough. But, as with the debate on nuclear energy, this will be difficult to get across to the dogmatic EU bureaucrats.
Deeply disappointed
Dutch shipowners, represented by the association KVNR, are deeply disappointed by the postponement of the IMO-NZF, ‘which means that a global approach cannot be reached at this time, thereby preventing a patchwork of regional measures such as the EU ETS. This should have been the culmination of a years-long process to accelerate the sustainability of the sector, while ensuring a level playing field worldwide. This postponement is therefore very disappointing,’ said Annet Koster, KVNR director, about the outcome.
On the website of Chinese web media outlet Xinde Marine News, Frode Morkedal, managing director of Clarksons Securities, calls the postponement a ‘missed opportunity for investment in newbuildings’. According to Morkedal, the winners in the short term are the owners of older, conventionally powered ships. ‘A global carbon price would have stimulated new construction, encouraged slow steaming and accelerated the scrapping of obsolete ships,’ he said. ‘Now that rhythm has been disrupted.’ Morkedal expects new order growth to slow, prices to fall and conventional designs to come back into favour, putting practical pressure on the IMO’s 2030 (forty per cent reduction) and 2050 (net zero) targets.
In a recent commentary, Bureau Veritas (BV) warned: ‘The real danger is that prolonged delays will increase market uncertainty and postpone investment decisions. Consensus is in everyone’s interest.’
Also read: Tripartite reaffirms support for IMO as global regulator
Green corridors and concrete measures
BV also emphasised that a more pragmatic route is emerging: developing green corridors where ships, ports, fuel supply and regulations advance together, achieving zero-emission trade on selected routes, electrification for certain short-distance ships or specialised vessels, and even exploring nuclear propulsion for segments that are difficult to reduce in the long term.
At the ship level, concrete measures such as wind-assisted propulsion, hull optimisation and energy-saving devices – including improved propellers and energy recovery systems – can reduce GHG intensity by double digits while also reducing fuel consumption. These upgrades, conversions and system installations offer unprecedented opportunities for ship repair yards around the world. Data from Clarksons shows that global repair activity has already increased by seven per cent this year, far outpacing fleet growth.
Respond to this article by sending an e-mail to Robin Zander, SWZ|Maritime’ss editor-in-chief: redactie@swzmaritime.nl.
Cartoon by Hans de Wilde/SWZ|Maritime.
