Navigating Rough Seas: Why Pacific Nations Resist Attempts to Sabotage Shipping Decarbonisation

A Critical Juncture for Global Shipping's Climate Future

Recent geopolitical events, like the Strait of Hormuz’s closure, might create a false impression that the world remains inextricably linked to fossil fuels. Yet, this perception masks a vital truth: every sector, including the colossal global shipping industry, possesses both the capacity and the imperative to transition to zero-carbon solutions. Decarbonizing global shipping, in particular, presents a unique opportunity, as technological solutions already exist and a single United Nations agency, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), can establish universally binding regulations. Significant initial strides have already been made.

In 2025, member states of the IMO achieved a significant milestone by agreeing upon the Net-Zero Framework (NZF), a vital policy mechanism designed to slash shipping emissions. Yet, a perplexing decision followed: formal adoption of this landmark accord was postponed.

The Looming Threat: Why Powerful States Are Trying to Sabotage Decarbonisation of Shipping

This delay is more than just a procedural hiccup; it’s emblematic of obstructive tactics employed by countries resistant to robust climate action. The IMO Framework, recognized as the world’s first global carbon price on any international polluter, was the result of years of arduous compromises and significant watering down. As it currently stands, it represents the absolute lowest acceptable bar for climate-vulnerable nations like Vanuatu. We simply cannot afford to concede another inch.

As delegates gather at the IMO in London next week, a critical decision looms: whether to uphold their unanimous commitment to phase out fossil fuels in a just and equitable manner. Representatives from Vanuatu travel to London with an unambiguous mandate: to push for the immediate adoption of the NZF this year.

Should any nation attempt to reopen the framework with the aim of further weakening it, our position remains unequivocally clear: we will revert to our original Pacific demand for a universal levy on emissions of $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

Unpacking the Net-Zero Framework: A Necessary Starting Point

Last year, my country abstained from the vote on the NZF agreement precisely because its ambition wasn't nearly strong enough. However, even with its current limitations, it offers a crucial starting point from which we can build.

But the tide has shifted dramatically since then. Following the initial delay in adoption, a small, influential group of countries is now suggesting further weakening the framework's ambition. This is to accommodate the demands of certain powerful states whose current policy stances are fundamentally misaligned with global climate goals. This strategy is deeply problematic; reducing our collective climate actions to align with those who seek no action at all is a direct threat to the continued survival of our people and the planet.

The world's poorest countries, and indeed the entire planet, simply cannot afford anything less than what is already on the table. The NZF, in its current form, provides a crucial chance for the world and the shipping industry to meet the climate obligations committed to by IMO countries in 2023: achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 in a just and equitable way.

The Dual Power of the NZF: Penalties and Progress

The NZF introduces vital penalty fees – essentially, emission pricing for non-compliance with regulations. This mechanism provides a necessary 'stick,' ensuring ships either comply with standards or incur significant financial costs. These penalties also generate substantial revenues, estimated at $10 billion to $12 billion annually. This funding serves a dual purpose: incentivizing industry transition and enabling a fair transition for all.

For developing nations, particularly the least developed states, this fund is an absolute lifeline. It provides the financial capacity to invest in clean maritime energy upgrades and helps compensate for the rising trade costs that might accompany this essential transition.

Debunking the Cost Claims: A Few Coffees, Not a Crisis

Some critics claim that revenues raised by the NZF will disproportionately inflate transport costs. This assertion is preposterous. The penalties charged through this framework amount to less than $1.50 per year for every living human being. Moreover, the burden of these costs should rightly fall on the biggest polluters. If the wealthiest 10 percent of the world's population were to foot this bill, it would equate to less than $15 per person annually – comparable to the cost of a few coffees, an amount easily absorbed by the world's richest.

To lose both critical financial penalties for non-compliance and vital financial support for climate-vulnerable countries like mine, all in the name of political compromise with wealthy oil-producing states, is a profoundly bad deal. It's detrimental not just for all climate-vulnerable states but also for an industry that demands and deserves clarity on its future trajectory. If anything, the framework needs more ambition and more decisive action.

The Universal Levy: A Stronger Vision for Decarbonisation

For years, Pacific states have championed an IMO regulation in the form of a universal levy on all shipping emissions. This comprehensive approach would send an unambiguous signal to the industry: Invest in the future now! This levy would generate revenues up to ten times greater than those from the NZF, serving as both a more potent 'stick' for polluters and a more substantial 'carrot' for first-movers and cash-poor nations.

This is not a handout; reaching net-zero by 2050 is simply not feasible if our countries lack the financial means to invest in clean ships. We have successfully garnered the support of a majority of IMO member states for this universal levy, including the European Union, South Korea, Japan, and important Global South states like Panama and Liberia. However, the influence exerted by the United States in this area has unfortunately led to shifts in some positions, to the detriment of our collective efforts.

Our unwavering position has always been grounded in the best available scientific evidence. The bridge we have meticulously built in the form of the NZF, through years of compromise and data-driven conviction, still stands. Let us cross it together by adopting it as agreed, without any further dilution.

Stand with the Pacific

Pacific states stand ready to fight for what science and justice demand. We call on our international partners to stand with us in this crucial battle for a sustainable future for global shipping and for all humanity.