MEPC 84 Net Zero Framework Takeaways
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London - Photo by D. Smith
The Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) met in London from April 27 to May 1, 2026 at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). MEPC 84 focused on advancing the proposed Net-Zero Framework (NZF) for shipping decarbonization. This update provides a concise summary of the NZF takeaways.
Background: The proposed NZF is a legally binding regulatory package that is designed to decarbonize international shipping by or around 2050. It introduces a "goal-based" marine fuel standard (regulating Greenhouse Gas Fuel Intensity) and a global economic mechanism (carbon pricing) to penalize high-emission ships and reward low-emission alternatives. Land based GHG emissions far exceed ship GHG emissions. Land based GHG emissions are much easier to regulate than ship GHG emissions. Nonetheless, IMO charged ahead with a NZF in 2025 even though renewable and low Carbon ship fuels to meet that ambitious goal are not available. The proposed framework includes a scheme to collect non-compliance penalties with Small Islands and Developing Nations (SIDS) expecting to be the beneficiaries. The question of who would control that large pile of money is vague at best. The proposed framework was “derailed” at the October 2025 MEPC meeting – some might say that it “crashed and burned.” It will be reconsidered in December 2026. In the meantime a European Emissions Trading System (ETS) has come into force. It too imposes a fee on GHG emissions and transfers that cash to European states. It is always important to “follow the money.” Once a regulatory system becomes entrenched and governments become dependent on any related income, taking that away from them can be compared to pulling a bone from the mouth of a bulldog. It is hard to fathom the preemption of existing domestic or regional schemes via an IMO global program unless they are somehow incorporated. This has resulted in heated debate.
What ship owners and operators want: They want certainty even if they don’t necessarily agree with all of the regulatory details. Ships are ordered and designed long before they are actually built and delivered. Then those ships remain in operation for many decades. A design target is needed sooner rather than later to ensure compliance. That uncertainty is expensive.
The NZF takeways from MEPC 84: The positions of states in favor of the NZF and states opposed to the NZF have really not changed. There was a lot of discussion on the need for consensus without actually reaching consensus. Perhaps they did agree that the NZF needs to be adjusted.
The USA is not expected to accept any economic measures - no monetary rewards to spur innovation and no monetary transfers to developing nations.
The implications for regional and domestic GHG regulatory frameworks are unclear. Further regulatory fragmentation is a strong possibility.
Next Steps: Negotiations on potential changes to the NZF will occur during Intersessional Working Group meetings in September and November of 2026. MEPC 85 will occur Monday 30 November to Thursday 3 December with the NZF considered at the Friday 4 December 2026 MEPC/ES.2 meeting. There is a high probability that negotiations will extend into 2027.
What compromises and decisions are needed to move the NZF forward? Here is the partial list as I currently see it (the first two fall under the banner “follow the money”):
Get rid of the “economic measures” that are essentially an international tax
Sort out implications for regional and domestic emissions trading schemes
Flexible Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) options are essential with both onboard direct capture and indirect capture on land in the form of offsets. Flexible sequestration options should include geologic sequestration where the CO2 is injected into the pore space of a confined formation like a depleted oil or gas field and mineralization where a CO2 solution is injected into reactive basaltic rock formations where the acidic water reacts with the basalt to form carbonate (permanent mineralization).
A rational fuel transition scheme that incentivizes the use of LNG over HFO and MGO in the short term, gradually replaces fossil fuels with compatible drop-in renewable alternatives, and facilitates the development of renewable fuel infrastructure. Don’t rule out molten salt nuclear propulsion.
