The IMO pendulum swings back towards the Net Zero Framework — 'as agreed' text gets further support but path forward remains uncertain
- Shipping and Oceans team
- 3 hours ago
- 4 min read
UCL provides a detailed analysis of the discussions at MEPC84, the penultimate meeting before potential adoption of the NZF later this year and what the outcomes of this week’s meeting could mean for the adoption of the Net Zero Framework
London 1st May 2026 – Readout from UCL Shipping and Oceans Research group shows IMO’s 84th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has concluded with the NZF agreed in principle in April 2025 now seeing the pendulum swing back to support it, after the events at MEPC.ES2. The majority of member states were able to accept the NZF as originally agreed as the basis for further work, which reverses, by a similar margin, the simple majority that was the basis of the adjournment of NZF at MEPC.ES2 in the vote called by Saudi Arabia.
The support for NZF is composed primarily of those countries opposing adjournment at MEPC.ES2, but with additional support from 5 countries flipping back (from supporting adjournment), as well as 10 countries that didn’t take a position at MEPC.ES2, or abstained, now clearly supporting NZF. Fewer countries (2) flipped positions from opposing adjournment, to opposing NZF. A similar number of countries that at MEPC.ES2 either supported (14) or opposed adjournment (11), did not take a position at this meeting. Among other things, this indicates the fluidity of a portion of the positions and the sustained uncertainty around adoption later this year.
Dr Tristan Smith, Professor of Energy and Transport at UCL Shipping and Oceans Research Group said: “..MEPC 84 was a refreshing return to IMO’s normal meeting style, the pressure to reach a conclusion was not there, but for the opponents of meaningful and effective IMO GHG regulation, this was an opportunity for them to finish what they started at MEPC.ES2. Their failure to do so is critical for shipping and trade’s future success, as well as multilateralism's future and for the chances of an equitable energy transition..."
Alternative proposals put forward by Argentina et al. (84/7/38) and Japan (84/7/38) did not gather significant support, both individually and in combination. Support for the Japan proposal as a way forwards saw only 7 member states voicing support and Argentina et al. proposal, a significant departure from the NZF, and also includes only the technical element and no GHG price or fund, saw support from 24 member states. On these counts, neither of these proposals individually, or even if combined into a single ‘compromise technical-only proposal’, is able to form a simple majority.
Dr Annika Frosch, Research Fellow at UCL Shipping and Oceans Research Group said: “The outcome of MEPC 84 makes clear that the Net Zero Framework is not only still alive, but remains the central pillar for ongoing negotiations. With a majority of member states reaffirming it as the basis for further work, attention now turns to how it can be refined and carried through to adoption.”
The meeting also reveals that in spite of efforts made to put forwards options that might be more acceptable to US and Saudi positions (various technical-only proposals), these do not look like viable ways forwards. This is important, because normally if there is a clear ‘two horse race’ e.g. two proposals with similar levels of support, they can often get merged (as was the case to form the NZF from the combination of the concept of a levy with those who were focused on a GHG fuel intensity metric and trading system with GHG price). However, if there is a proposal that clearly has the majority, it is much harder for the proponents of significantly lesser-supported proposals to achieve significant concessions. Their optionality then becomes either to achieve more modest modifications in exchange for support, or to remain in opposition. The risk with taking the latter strategy is to be isolated and have very little input at all in what is finally agreed – if the agreement and adoption thresholds are reached by countries supporting the NZF.
Dr Pinar Langer, Research Fellow at UCL Shipping & Oceans Research Group said: “MEPC 84 suggests there is limited appetite for starting again or shifting to a much weaker alternative. The more credible path now appears to be targeted refinements to the agreed Net Zero Framework, while preserving the elements that make it meaningful and effective.”
Overall, MEPC 84 signals positive momentum towards the NZF from this MEPC 84 meeting in some of the regions critical to the reversal in support for NZF at MEPC.ES2 (Africa, Caribbean, EU). There is also potential for this momentum to be sustained and built further over this next period, particularly in Africa, but also because of the clarity of the low support (beyond those countries who have consistently opposed NZF) for alternative concepts put to this meeting. This does not mean that there is any certainty on the outcome to future work and the three scenarios for how things might conclude or not, at MEPC 85. This will first become clearer from the intersessional meeting expected in September (ISWG GHG 22 is expected to be held 1st to 4th September), but given the MEPC.ES2 meeting in October 2025, the final specifications will likely continue to remain contentious at least until there is an adopted amendment.