As a crucial International Maritime Organization  meeting on reducing the shipping sector’s climate heating emissions closes with little progress made, the Clean Shipping Coalition expressed dismay at the lack of action and demanded greater ambition ahead of a looming April 2025 deadline.

During the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 18) IMO member states faced the task of resolving differences on hundreds of details within the technical and economic policies on lowering shipping’s climate impact, to be approved at MEPC 83 in April 2025, and adopted by the IMO at an extraordinary MEPC in October 2025.

While this week’s deliberations touched on most of these points of disagreement, none that will drive the shipping sector to achieve the goals of the 2023 IMO Strategy were resolved, leaving an enormous amount of work to be done over the next five weeks if countries are to agree upon a final legal policy document that can be approved at MEPC 83

During the meeting, significant focus came on the GHG emission pricing mechanism, in particular the flat GHG emissions levy that the analysis shows supports the lowest cost maritime energy transition and ensures that developing countries, especially SIDS and LDCs, will not be left behind. Notably, the number of countries calling for inclusion of a greenhouse gas levy has now grown to over 60.

Ahead of the meeting, The Clean Shipping Coalition had called for clear progress on:

• Global Fuel/Energy Standards: Clear, enforceable fuel/energy standards will catalyse the transition to clean energy. By incentivizing early investment in wind power and zero-GHG fuels, these standards will reduce emissions and spur the creation of green jobs and resilient economies worldwide.
• Equitable Implementation of a Pollution Fee: Holding polluters accountable via a greenhouse gas emission levy would provide a clear market signal to drive emission reductions and ensure a just and equitable transition to clean shipping. The resulting revenue can be used to support vulnerable nations and ensure all can play a part in the energy transition.

“With 2024 marked as the hottest year on record, capping a decade of ‘hottest years’, there’s no more room for delay, yet this week IMO member states ignored a looming April deadline, making little progress on the a global fuel standard and greenhouse gas levy that would reduce emissions and the shipping sector’s impact on the climate and would ensure a just and equitable transition to zero emission shipping, including wind power”, said Delaine McCullough, Ocean Conservancy’s Shipping Emissions Policy Manager and President of the Clean Shipping Coalition. “Although there continues to be obstruction and delay, these priority policies are still on the table for ISWG-GHG 19 and MEPC 83 in March-April. There have been some initial moves by states to broker agreements, but much hard work remains to be done. Countries must demonstrate leadership by agreeing on ambitious, enforceable fuel standards and a greenhouse gas levy that slash shipping’s impact on the climate, and which cannot be watered down in last minute compromises.”

“One of the bright spots of this week’s meetings was the strong participation of new voices who joined more than 60 IMO member states calling for the inclusion of a levy for greenhouse gas emissions of the maritime sector”, said McCullough. “It was particularly encouraging to see Mexico and Panama act as regional leaders in this crucial discussion, – we now need a rallying call by IMO member states to agree on strong global fuel standard and greenhouse gas levy as the best way forward for reducing emissions from the shipping sector”.

Bastien Bonnet-Cantalloube, Expert on Decarbonisation of Aviation and Shipping, at Carbon Market Watch said: “The choice of a greenhouse gas pricing scheme at the IMO is not just about reducing emissions—it’s about who bears the costs. Whatever mechanism is adopted, the most vulnerable will be hit the hardest. That’s why the key distinction between different proposals lies in their ability to generate substantial revenues to support those most affected. The science is clear: only a robust, stand-alone levy of at least $150 per ton of CO₂ can provide the necessary funding for an equitable transition. Such a policy has its rightful place within MARPOL’s legal framework. Delegates must not be misled by weak, loophole-ridden alternatives that fail to hold major polluters accountable and undermine climate action. Half-measures are no longer an option. To align with science and protect both people and the planet, the IMO must seize this moment and adopt an ambitious levy this year.”

“Food security has been at the heart of IMO discussions this week, and what is clear is that, while we advance towards zero-emission and near-zero-emission fuels and propelling technologies in the maritime sector, we cannot sacrifice food security in pursuit of decarbonisation goals. A poorly designed Global Fuel Standard risks diverting food crops and causing price volatility. Growing support for the Levy is encouraging, but the lagging Global Fuel Standard raises concerns about long-term costs and economic resilience. This isn’t just about cutting emissions – it’s about survival. Vulnerable economies depend on balanced policies that secure both our climate future and our food systems. We must act with urgency to align these imperatives”, said Anaïs Rios, Shipping Policy Officer, Seas At Risk.

“While much of the discussion is focused on the levy, we are making zero progress on the global fuel standard. We are less than two months away from having to make a final decision, and we still do not know how much ships will be expected to reduce their emissions and which fuels and technologies will count as green. This is worrying given the big push for first generation biofuels which are often associated with direct and indirect emissions. This huge risk is going under the radar”, said Constance Dijkstra, IMO Policy Manager at Transport & Environment.