The delivery sector’s first binding emissions targets have been agreed on Friday 11 April, making it the primary business with internationally mandated targets of this type. Whereas thought of a landmark deal, some observers say enhancements are wanted to the package deal of measures if the maritime sector is to achieve internet zero by 2050.
The deal – agreed throughout a gathering of the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee – acquired endorsement from 63 international locations, together with China, Brazil, South Africa and a number of other European states.
China ultimately reached a compromise however had earlier opposed “overly ambitious” local weather objectives and a worldwide carbon levy, citing the potential for disproportionate impacts on growing nations.
Sixteen international locations opposed the deal, notably the US, citing unfairnesses and the truth that the US would find yourself paying greater than different nations. There have been additionally issues that such a deal might may set a precedent that allowed non-IMO regional blocs (just like the EU) to impose related carbon pricing unilaterally, undermining US sovereignty in commerce and delivery regulation.
Saudi Arabia additionally opposed the ultimate deal, having taken the same stance to China and Brazil on the propensity for a worldwide carbon levy to precise a disproportionate toll on growing nations, however refusing to achieve a compromise. The Saudi delegation additionally voiced doubts in regards to the maturity of applied sciences like e-fuels and onboard carbon seize, seen as indispensable for assembly the proposed targets.
A protracted-standing coverage vaccuum?
Delivery accounts for almost 3% of complete international CO2 emissions, in response to current IMO figures,1 and amongst sectors that contribute most to the general tally, it ranks someplace within the high 8 (i.e., under power, land transport, and heavy business, however above waste).
A 2023 global climate strategy for the sector had set out an ambition to realize a 30% discount in GHG emissions by 2030, and 80% by 2040, which is “close to a level of ambition that can deliver on the Paris climate agreement”, in response to a current remark by tutorial consultants,2 however the apparent excellent merchandise has been insurance policies to make sure these targets are met.
The brand new settlement units “indicative checkpoints” to scale back complete annual GHG emissions from worldwide delivery by a minimum of 20%, striving for 30%, by 2030, and a minimum of 70%, striving for 80%, by 2040, in comparison with 2008 ranges.
In addition to these absolute reductions, the brand new settlement additionally defines a worldwide gas commonplace that units GHG depth discount targets for annually from 2027 to 2035. That is meant to push the business in the direction of putative low- or zero-carbon fuels reminiscent of e-ammonia and e-methanol.
One other key ingredient of the brand new framework is the introduction of monetary penalties. From 2027, ships exceeding sure emission thresholds will incur penalties, together with a $100 charge per ton of emissions above sure limits. This scheme is predicted to generate as much as $13 billion yearly, meant to help the transition to cleaner delivery applied sciences and help growing nations.
Revenues generated by the penalties will likely be used to fund a reward mechanism for zero- and near-zero emission fuels and may doubtlessly help a simply and equitable transition, stated the International Maritime Discussion board, a not-for-profit group headquartered in Copenhagen.
The settlement additionally enshrines a carbon buying and selling system that it’s hoped will enable delivery corporations to purchase and promote emission credit, incentivizing cleaner applied sciences and operational effectivity.
General, the International Maritime Discussion board stated the brand new targets have been “laudable, but not enough to drive needed investments.”
Towards the present backdrop of geopolitical tensions and unprecedented disruption of worldwide commerce, the discussion board praised the efforts as “an example of multilateralism still at work.”
Jesse Fahnestock, the group’s Director of Decarbonisation, commented: “While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.”
The group stated it believed the agreed measures might not be robust sufficient on their very own to ship on the IMO’s technique. “The GHG intensity targets create uncertainty as to whether the strategy’s emissions reduction checkpoints for 2030 and 2040 will be met. As currently designed, measures are unlikely to be sufficient to incentivise the rapid development of e-fuels such as e-ammonia or e-methanol, which will be needed in the long run due to their scalability and emission reduction potential. A failure to begin investing in these fuels now would put the target of at least 5% zero- and near-zero emission fuel use by 2030 and the industry’s entire 2050 net-zero goal at risk.”
“A lot of work remains to be done. There will be opportunities to strengthen the GHG intensity targets and penalties via future reviews. In addition, crucial details about the implementation of the measures will need to be developed between now and their entry into force in 2028. These include guidelines on the revenue disbursement and life cycle emission factors of fuels that will affect which fuels and vessels can receive financial support, and which fuels are capable of meeting the targets in the short run.”
“As the measures in their current form are unlikely to deliver an early transition to e-fuels, active support from national and regional policies is also needed. To this end, the Global Maritime Forum calls on national governments, regional institutions, and collaborative industry initiatives to re-double their focus on zero-emission shipping, for example by finding ways to bridge the cost difference between fossil and e-fuels, supporting the development of required infrastructure and fuel production, and ensuring that more is done to promote the transition in the Global South. As the industry evaluates its investments in this transition, long-term strategies are key to avoid further locking into short-term solutions.”
Notes
(1) In response to the IMO Fourth GHG Examine, 2020, worldwide delivery alone accounts for ~2.89% of complete international CO₂ emissions.
(2) “At a pivotal meeting, the world is set to decide how to cut shipping emissions”, published in The DialogApril 7, 2025
