Was the MEPC outcome really that unexpected?

MEPC session delays adoption of Net Zero Framework

Without exception, major international maritime and shipping organisations have expressed their disappointment at the outcome of the extraordinary session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) last week which chose to “adjourn” the adoption of draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, including the IMO Net-Zero Framework. But just how unexpected was this decision given the increasingly loud statements being made by those claiming climate change to be a hoax that is being perpetuated to the detriment of global economies?

While the international maritime industry convened to discuss reducing greenhouse gas emissions in London, across the pond in the United States of America, President Donald Trump last week proclaimed a National Energy Dominance Month. “My energy policy is defined by maximum production, maximum prosperity, and maximum power,” he proclaimed while alluding to the “Green New Scam”.

“I established the National Energy Dominance Council to ensure the American energy industry maintains its global leadership in the decades to come.  I also took action to revive America’s dominance in offshore critical minerals and resources, lift burdensome regulations on coal plants to ensure they can continue to run, launch the nuclear energy renaissance, and open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, one of the largest drilling sites in the world,” he added.

Despite similar statements from other oil producers, after being approved at a MEPC session in April, many believed that the IMO Net-Zero Framework would be adopted last week to set international regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships, in line with IMO's 2023 Strategy for Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships.

Now Member States will have to work towards obtaining consensus before reconvening on the issue in 12 months’ time. And the USA is not a lone voice in delaying action. Achieving consensus is going to be a tall order given that 57 countries voted in favour of the adjournment while 49 opposed it and a further 21 abstained.

Global response fills the echo chamber

Despite the clear vote to delay progress, the International Association for Ports and Harbours (IAPH), the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), the Global Maritime Forum (GMF) and the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) have all expressed their dismay.

 “This is a major setback for the maritime industry. Shipping and ports need a global framework that provides them with legal certainty to make the necessary investments in decarbonisation. Only IMO can provide such a framework. We don’t know what this adjournment will lead to, but we fear it will simply open the door for more national and regional measures, which will add to an already complex regulatory patchwork resulting in unintended consequences,” said IAPH Managing Director Patrick Verhoeven.

Thomas Kazakos, ICS Secretary General echoed the need for clarity. “We are disappointed that member states have not been able to agree a way forward at this meeting. Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonise the maritime sector, in line with the goals set out in the IMO GHG strategy,” he said in a statement.

Admitting that a different outcome had been anticipated, IBIA issued a statement emphasising their commitment to continue to support the IMO’s work towards the adoption of the Net Zero Framework.

“A working group meeting at IMO next week to prepare implementing guidelines will see an attempt to heal the diplomatic scars of this week,” they confirmed.

“The adjournment is a disappointing setback for shipping, but not the end of this journey. The adjournment for a full year creates serious challenges for meeting the timelines in the Net-Zero Framework agreed in April and will make delivery of the sector’s decarbonisation targets even more challenging,” says Global Maritime Forum director of decarbonisation Jesse Fahnestock.  

All of these international organisations include membership from countries that sought to vote against the adoption of the Net Zero Framework or abstained from voting. The questions remain, how can individual international organisations express surprise at the will of their own members and why was there not a clearer understanding of how the majority was aligned ahead of the session?

Action needed

Having recently celebrated a World Maritime Theme of “Our Ocean, Our Obligation, Our Opportunity,” it should not be surprising to hear criticisms from environmental organisations describing this as mere lip service to policies to address GHG emissions and other maritime pollution.

By Colleen Jacka, editor Maritime Review Africa

What are Africa’s chances for IMO Council election?