IMO Picks Council Members But Net Zero Framework Hiatus Raises Red Flag For Potential Fragmentation Of Shipping Decarbonization

The Assembly of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for regulating and improving international shipping, has elected Member States to serve on three categories of the IMO Council. Meanwhile, EmissionLink’s Managing Director has warned that the IMO’s decision to delay its Net Zero Framework is creating a regulatory vacuum which threatens to fragment global shipping decarbonization efforts.

The IMO Assembly has selected ten states with the largest interest in providing international shipping services to join the IMO Council under category (a), encompassing China, Greece, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Norway, Panama, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.

>> In Other News: 'Rock Candy' Technique Offers Simpler, Less Costly Way To Capture Carbon Directly From Air

Ten more states secured a spot in category (b), said to have the largest interest in international seaborne trade, encapsulating Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates.

The remaining category (C) is made up of 20 states not elected under (a) or (b) segments, which have special interests in maritime transport or navigation and whose election to the Council will ensure the representation of all major geographic areas of the world.

The list of these 20 countries includes the Bahamas, Belgium, Chile, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, Indonesia, Jamaica, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, and Türkiye.

While the newly elected Council will meet for its 136th session on December 4, 2025, and elect its Chair and Vice-Chair for the next biennium, EmissionLink’s Managing Director claims that several countries are already moving to fill the void in the wake of the IMO’s move to postpone its Net Zero Framework.

In light of this, the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) will come into force in June 2026, Türkiye is preparing its own version, and Gabon on Africa’s west coast has openly discussed a local carbon levy, with more governments likely to follow, driven as much by fiscal pressures as environmental goals.

Philippos Ioulianou, Managing Director of EmissionLink, commented: “What looks like a pause is, in reality, an open door for national governments to move ahead with their own systems. Instead of gaining clarity, we risk creating a patchwork of unaligned carbon schemes that will make global compliance significantly harder for shipowners.

“For many governments facing widening budget gaps, carbon pricing offers a quick route to new revenue. Without a unified global framework, carbon markets could become less about decarbonisation and more about balancing the books.

“Good luck to the shipowner who gets it wrong. Picture a vessel calling at a West African port, unaware of a newly introduced local regulation. The port authority could detain it for non-compliance and the owner is left footing the bill.”

Ioulianou warns that regionalized systems will multiply reporting formats, verification rules, and administrative burdens, creating real operational risks, adding that some owners are already adjusting trade patterns to avoid overlapping schemes. He also raised concerns about the way revenues from emerging national carbon schemes would be used.

Ioulianou emphasized: “There is no assurance that these funds will flow back into decarbonisation. Some governments won’t even know how much they’ll collect until year-end and once the money arrives, the temptation to redirect it to other priorities will be strong. Managing this manually, port by port or across scattered spreadsheets, is no longer realistic.

“Owners need real-time intelligence on regulatory changes and data they can act on — long before they reach the next port of call. […] Every new national scheme makes it harder for the IMO to rebuild a globally aligned approach later. Once rules fracture into regional pieces, putting them back together will be extremely difficult.

“The delay was meant to give the industry time to adapt. Instead, it risks creating confusion, competition and complacency. The world isn’t waiting for a decision, it’s moving ahead, one emissions scheme at a time.”