IMO Ends Another Net-Zero Session Divided, With Three Meetings Left in 2026
Two-thirds of states are said to back a centralised pricing and collection system that rewards early adopters
The International Maritime Organization has completed another working group session on decarbonisation still largely divided, and is now aiming for a possible resolution by the end of 2026.
Optimists came away noting a productive discussion with less political manoeuvring than in earlier rounds, but the United States and others continued their opposition to the Net Zero Framework, and key issues were deferred either to further intersessional discussion or to a consequential run of three sessions in late November and early December.
The opposition is concentrated among oil-producing states. The United States, Saudi Arabia and others continued to press for key elements of the framework to be scrapped, or for additions covering different fuels and more compliance pathways. The proposed fund at the centre of the mechanism remains a focus of resistance even after proposed changes and a renaming, and that resistance was enough to defer adoption votes.
Alternatives came from several directions. Liberia wants the availability and affordability of cleaner fuels tied into the structure. Japan proposed replacing the pricing structure with shipowner-directed contributions, which observers in the closed-door sessions reported was robustly rejected. China put forward a proposal including reward payments that could form a single transaction, which was reported to receive broad support. Smaller and island nations continue to push for stricter requirements. Researchers at the UCL Energy Institute noted likely efforts to soften the initial Global Fuel Intensity pathway, alongside broad debate on pooling and the transfer of credits.
Despite the visible split, the direction of travel appears settled. Observers say at least two-thirds of states support a centralised pricing and collection system that also rewards early adopters, and that after four days of meetings there was no significant support for an alternative to adopting the framework itself.
The risk lies in the balance rather than the outcome. Whilst there are many positives to take away, said Dr Tristan Smith, Professor of Energy and Transport at UCL, there remains high uncertainty in the extent that both industry's transition and low-income countries' transitions will be supported. There remains high risk that in the effort to find a creative way forwards, the equilibrium between these two aspects, that enabled the framework in the first place, is lost to the detriment of the outcome overall.
The IMO's own summary emphasised strong participation, with over 1,200 registered for the intersessional working group, and a genuine willingness within the group to make concrete further progress. What did not happen was a finalised text. The four days were spent debating, and some elements were deferred, including the lifecycle framework, which was not considered at all. UCL concluded that several key aspects of the negotiation are wide open and did not narrow during the week, with the core question being how soft the early transition is and what regulatory tools and support exist for businesses managing the change.
The calendar is now tight. The intersessional working group reconvenes on 23 November for a week, MEPC 85 runs from 30 November to 4 December, and the extraordinary sessions adjourned in October 2025 resume on 4 December, assuming MEPC 85 produces conclusions. For owners planning tonnage against a CII trajectory, that leaves the regulatory shape of the next decade to be settled in about three weeks of meetings.
