IMO Climate Agreement Shipwreck Misses Targets And Betrays Most Vulnerable

London,11 April 2025: As International Maritime Organization (IMO) negotiations crucial to climate action by the global shipping sector close today, the Clean Shipping Coalition slammed IMO member states for falling far short of the UN body’s own 2030, 2040 and 2050 climate targets and failing the people and regions most vulnerable to climate change.

On the table during this week’s meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 83), were several key measures, including a Global Fuel Standard (GFS) and greenhouse gas emission levy intended to incentivize uptake of zero emission fuels and energy and ensure that no countries are left behind, and a revision of the IMO’s Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) - a key tool for measuring and driving improvements in the energy efficiency and thus climate emissions of ships. 

“This week, IMO member states squandered a golden opportunity for the global shipping sector to show the world how it can turn the tide on catastrophic climate heating, putting their own goals - eliminating the sector’s GHG emissions without leaving any countries behind - out of reach”, said Delaine McCullough, President of the Clean Shipping Coalition. 

“The longer the delay to complete a maritime energy transition to zero emissions, the more expensive it gets – and just like the impacts of climate heating, these costs hit Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) the hardest. Instead of setting a strong energy efficiency regulation, combined with an ambitious fuel standard and sufficiently high price on all GHG emissions from ships, the IMO instead chose low ambition and business as usual”, McCullough added.

“The agreement reached on revision of the IMO’s Carbon Intensity Indicator this week is a total shipwreck”, said John Maggs, Clean Shipping Coalition’s Representative at IMO. 
“The delay to the enhancement of the CII’s effectiveness, coupled with setting targets close to ‘business-as-usual’ so low that they will play no meaningful part in meeting the IMO’s 2023 GHG Strategy’s 2030 emission reduction is not only a failure of ambition but a massive own-goal for the IMO and the shipping sector”, Maggs continued. “A properly functioning CII is essential for the shipping industry to reap the emission rewards of the lowest-hanging decarbonisation fruit, and to keep the cost of shipping’s climate transition to a minimum. Without a change of heart at the next meeting (MEPC 84 in 2026), around half of shipping’s 1.5C aligned emissions will effectively remain unregulated.”

“Multilateralism isn't dead - despite a tumultuous geopolitical environment, the IMO deal creates a momentum for alternative marine fuels, but unfortunately it is the forest-destroying first generation biofuels that will get the biggest push for the next decade”, said Faïg Abbasov, shipping programme director for Transport & Environment. “Without better incentives for sustainable e-fuels from green hydrogen, it is impossible to decarbonise this heavy polluting industry. The ball is now in the court of individual countries to implement national policies to open a life-line to green e-fuels".

“This week's outcome misses even IMO's baseline - leaving the 2030 decarbonisation target dead in the water, with potential disastrous long-term impacts for people and the planet. The EU may have drifted to the corner of low-ambition, but the absence of bold targets brought bold voices: the emergence of a strong, united voice from African, Caribbean and Pacific nations shows that the global south won't wait for the north to get their act together", said Anaïs Rios, Shipping Policy Officer, Seas At Risk. 

“The compromise reached today by IMO member states is clearly not up to the challenge that awaits the shipping sector,” said Bastien Bonnet-Cantalloube, Expert on Decarbonisation of Aviation and Shipping, at Carbon Market Watch. "Not enough emission reductions, not enough emissions priced, not priced high enough, not enough revenues. By ignoring the problem, the IMO will not make it go away. This marks a missed opportunity to set an example for other sectors to agree on ambitious global measures for their decarbonisation. Governments in the IMO clearly have work left to set the course for a just and ambitious decarbonisation pathway for international shipping. More ambitious regional and industry actions are needed to make up for this blatantly weak deal.”

“The IMO is not just failing on climate—it’s actively enabling a methane lock-in,” said Elissama Menezes, Director of Equal Routes. “This week’s meeting showed that even with the heavy lifting done by small island developing nations, and least developed nations, the IMO continues to protect the status quo. The refusal to adopt a 1.5°C-aligned carbon levy that supports the world’s most vulnerable has left the least developed behind. And while methane-based fuels like LNG face growing scrutiny worldwide, the IMO is effectively leaving it to others to regulate their climate impact. By refusing to take a clear stand on 1.5 alignment, the IMO is risking both climate credibility and its relevance in the global energy transition.”

On Thursday, April 10, consideration of proposals for enhancing the CII’s effectiveness were delayed by two to three years, while the new targets for 2027-30 were set at levels close to ‘business-as-usual’, so low that they will play no meaningful part in meeting the 2023 IMO GHG Strategy’s absolute emission reduction goal for 2030 - and pretty much guaranteeing that this target will now be missed.

The Global Fuel Standard (GFS) deal agreed today by IMO member states provides clear decarbonisation targets until 2035 and only a small share of emissions will be priced for revenue generation. This fails to provide long-term certainty needed for the development of alternative fuels and technologies – such as wind and solar – and includes weak penalty prices which are mainly going to incentive ships to switch to potentially damaging biofuels. In terms of revenue generation, expected potential revenue is very far from what is required to guarantee a just and equitable transition and real clean fuels – this is a big missed opportunity at a time of acute risks linked to climate change. 

During MEPC 83, IMO member states replaced the flat high levy on all GHG emissions from ships, with a hybrid system of some credit trading and requirement for ships with emissions exceeding the target for the year to purchase remedial units at a set price. This decision replaced a straightforward pricing system that sends a clear signal to industry, with a complex, likely unpredictable price signal that fails to incentivise critical early investments in zero-emission fuels and technologies. The replacement of the levy with a very low GHG price on a limited scope of emissions means the funds needed to ensure that all countries, particularly SIDS and LDCs will be equitably included–and not harmed–by the maritime energy transition. The pricing in the agreement fails both to drive the energy transition and ensure a just and equitable transition.

The coalition also singled out the EU for criticism, for its failure to support an ambitious revision of the Carbon Intensity Indicator. A group of petro states also moved to upend the process at the last minute, with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Russia, Venezuela and others calling for a vote on the final agreement, thus undermining consensus support for the measure. In contrast, many member states showed ambition and fought for a just and equitable outcome to the negotiations, including the Marshall Islands, Fiji, Palau and other African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

In a closing statement to the IMO plenary, the Clean Shipping Coalition said:
We anticipated that the agreement emerging from this process, in which there would need to be compromise, would fall short of what is needed to put shipping on a 1.5 compliant decarbonization pathway, but we were not prepared for this agreement that is so unfit for purpose. One that falls short - not only of what climate science tells us is needed – but of what this very organization committed to just 2 years ago. 

In 2023, the IMO adopted a strategy that set a clear ambition to reduce emissions from shipping by at least 20% by 2030, striving for 30%. This agreement does not even meet that base target. In fact, when combined with the failure of this body to strengthen the CII, it allows for business-as-usual emissions until 2028. effectively writing off this critical decade for action. 

At a time when we should be accelerating the transition to zero-emission shipping, this deal fails to send the clear signal to industry. It fails to generate the incentives dearly needed to scale up e-fuels and zero emission technologies and locks in methane use by not restricting fuels such as LNG. It delays action when with every year we lose, the transition becomes more costly, more unjust and more uncertain. 

More importantly, chair, this agreement tacitly accepts that the most vulnerable and future generations will bear the brunt of our inaction. 

There was a clear push to get a deal but when a deal is too weak, is it truly better than no deal? When it delays action, undermines ambition, deepens global inequality and creates new sacrifice zones, we must ask ourselves: a deal at what cost?

Marine plastic litter:
"It’s deeply disappointing that the IMO’s Marine Environment Protect Committee continues to sideline urgent issues like marine plastic litter, even as we witness another disastrous plastic pellet spill in UK waters this March and confront daily devastation from unabated fishing gear loss. These incidents are not isolated but rather indicative of an oceanic system on the brink of collapse - fuelled by a shipping industry whose disregard for environmental responsibility is evident in ongoing pollution and the chronic failure to effectively implement Annex V. Two days of negotiations each year at PPR is wholly inadequate. The IMO must do better and give these crises the focused, sustained attention they require," said Amy Youngman, Legal and Policy Expert at Environmental Investigation Agency.

© Scoop Media