The Clean Shipping Coalition has called on International Maritime Organisation (IMO) member states to hold firm in their support for the Net-Zero Framework, according to a statement released this week. 

The statement warned that alternative proposals submitted ahead of this week’s IMO negotiations could weaken climate action by the shipping industry and delay the adoption of the long-negotiated agreement. 

The call came as the IMO’s Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships began a four-day meeting in London on September 1. 

Discussions during ISWG-GHG 22 are expected to include the Net-Zero Framework and its proposed adoption at December’s Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting. 

Clean Shipping Coalition president Lukas Leppert said that “while less ambitious than we had hoped for, the NZF’s broad political support from member states means it remains the best tool available to meet the IMO’s Greenhouse Gas Strategy goals on climate, decarbonisation and a just and equitable energy transition for the shipping industry, and must be adopted by the IMO this December”. 

“The result of multiple rounds of negotiations, the NZF is already by any measure, an acceptable compromise,” he added, warning that “any further weakening would lead to a less effective, slower, and costlier transition”. 

According to the statement, shipping accounts for 2 to 3 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, a level comparable to the emissions of Japan, the world’s fifth-largest emitting country. 

The IMO has committed to decarbonising international shipping by 2050, alongside interim targets of reducing absolute emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by 2040. Its greenhouse gas strategy also includes a commitment to ensuring a just and equitable transition. 

Approved during MEPC 83 in 2025, the Net-Zero Framework includes a global fuel standard requiring ship operators to gradually reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping fuels or pay penalties. 

It also introduces a mechanism that places a price on a portion of ships’ greenhouse gas emissions, providing the industry with a financial incentive to reduce emissions in line with the fuel standard. 

Ocean Conservancy shipping programme director Delaine McCullough said that “shipping is the backbone of the global economy, with estimates of shipping trade’s market value topping $14 trillion, but as it’s also a major source of climate pollution, heating up our ocean and our planet, it must be part of the solution”. 

“As ocean temperatures hit record highs again this summer, increasing storm intensity and threatening marine life, food supplies, and coastal communities, there’s no time for further delay in addressing the roughly one billion tons of carbon dioxide shipping spews into our atmosphere every year,” she added. 

McCullough also referred to the years of negotiation and compromise required to reach the current framework. 

“It may not be perfect, but it has the elements needed to eliminate the global shipping industry’s emissions by 2050 and help ensure that the countries facing the greatest climate risks with the least capacity to respond are not further harmed in the maritime energy transition,” she said. 

She added that adoption of the framework “as is” would be “a huge step forward for our climate, communities, and ocean”. 

Meanwhile, NABU senior policy officer for maritime transport Sönke Diesener said the Clean Shipping Coalition could not support any option that did not include a financial greenhouse gas penalty and fund. 

“These economic measures are essential for incentivizing emission reductions, supporting the uptake of zero-emission fuels and technologies as well as for ensuring a just and equitable transition,” he said. 

Diesener added that the industry required clear regulatory direction and that the IMO now had an opportunity to provide “global planning security for the ramp-up of sustainable solutions”. 

Further consideration of the IMO’s life-cycle assessment framework is also included on the meeting’s agenda. The framework will determine well-to-wake emissions and sustainability criteria for marine fuels. 

Equal Routes co-director Andrew Dumbrille warned that giving an advantage to methane-based fuels, including LNG and biomethane, would lock in methane emissions from shipping for decades. 

“The LCA guidelines must include sustainability criteria that account for biodiversity and human rights impacts, real world emissions factors for methane-based fuels, and reflect GHG emissions of indirect land use change caused by production of biogenic fuels,” he said. 

In addition, Seas At Risk senior shipping policy officer Anaïs Rios said accelerated climate warming was already causing record heatwaves, flooding, wildfires and droughts around the world. 

“For the shipping sector, the question is no longer whether it needs to decarbonise, but how best to meet the goals of the IMO’s GHG Strategy and to reach net zero by 2050,” she said. 

Rios added that the industry “must quickly evolve so that it acts as a shared good for people, rather than a key contributor to the climate crisis and the loss of health and livelihoods around the world”. 

“The best way to achieve this is for IMO member states to adopt the Net-Zero Framework in December,” she said. 

Following widespread support for the framework at MEPC 84 in May 2026, the statement said the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework was back on track. However, it warned that supporters had to remain vigilant against attempts to further delay its adoption, which is scheduled for early December. 

The announcement said these threats had now materialised through alternative proposals submitted by several IMO member states. After examining the available proposals, it singled out those submitted by Liberia and Japan as particularly unsuitable for the decarbonisation of shipping. 

Liberia, the world’s largest flag state, has proposed allowing ships to continue using conventional fuels if cleaner alternatives are considered too costly or unavailable. 

Its proposal also places greater emphasis on trading surplus units, while removing mandatory payments into a Net-Zero Fund. 

The statement argued that, without reduction targets or financial incentives, the proposal would not lead to changes beyond business as usual. It added that the absence of available funds would make it impossible to address disproportionately negative effects on individual states. 

“By failing to ensure a just and equitable transition on top of its poor climate performance, the Clean Shipping Coalition finds that Liberia’s proposal constitutes a fundamental redesign which will fail to deliver on the goals set out in the 2023 IMO Greenhouse Gas Strategy,” Leppert said. 

Japan, meanwhile, has proposed an alternative to compliance payments being directed into a centralised fund. Its proposal would allow shipowners to direct payments towards projects of their own choice. 

Transport & Environment interim shipping director Alex Springer said that “without proper oversight from a governing board, and a clearer focus, the system proposed by Japan risks creating a scheme where money is invested into projects that do little to reduce emissions”. 

“Left to its own devices, the industry will continue its reliance on dead-end ‘solutions’ like fossil LNG or crop biofuels, for an expensive, long-term fossil lock-in,” he said. 

Springer added that “real solutions such as e-fuels and electrification require investment certainty, long-term targets, and robust governance – all of which the proposal is lacking”. 

The statement called for a central fund administered by the IMO or another independent body, with sufficient contributions to ensure a just and equitable transition. 

It added that small island developing states and least developed countries facing disproportionately negative impacts required financial support, as they had made clear during earlier negotiations. 

The announcement also raised procedural concerns over Japan’s proposal, as it was not circulated six months before the meeting, as normally required. Therefore, it cannot be adopted under the normal rules at MEPC 85. 

The IMO had already delayed its timetable for establishing a climate framework for global shipping in 2025 after MEPC ES.2 was adjourned for a year. 

According to the statement, the delay had wasted valuable time while greenhouse gas emissions from shipping continued, while postponed investment would result in a faster and more expensive transition at a later stage. 

It further argued that Japan’s submission risked diverting attention from proposals already circulated, pushing the IMO further off course and weakening trust in the organisation’s ability to regulate international shipping and deliver its own climate goals. 

“Both the Liberia and Japan proposals are wrecking balls, aimed at the heart of shipping climate action, and will prevent necessary action, cause higher total costs, will not support a just and equitable transition, and ultimately will fail to meet the obligations the shipping sector faces,” Leppert said. 

He added that both proposals were “designed to placate those that do not think shipping climate action is needed, and serve only to undermine what has been achieved so far”. 

“Getting to the Net-Zero Framework is the result of multiple years of negotiations,” Leppert continued, adding that the result was supported by a comprehensive impact assessment and had “the ability to deliver on the goals of the IMO GHG Strategy”. 

“Forget the distractions. Now is the moment for the IMO and all its member states to have the courage to protect and adopt the Net-Zero Framework ‘as is’,” he concluded.