A bulk carrier lifts a huge load of coal at the port of Mtwara in southern Tanzania – an image that underlines the fossil fuel’s stubborn hold, even as global negotiators push for a net-zero framework to steer shipping towards clean energy. Credit: Kizito Makoye Shigela/IPS
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, Apr 16 (IPS) – As global shipping prepares for another round of high-stakes negotiations, a volatile mix of rising fuel costs, geopolitical tensions and deep political divisions is testing the fragile consensus around the proposed Net-Zero Framework (NZF), aimed at decarbonizing one of the world’s most polluting industries.
Talks were called under International Maritime Organization (IMO)Come at a moment of intense uncertainty. The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has sent oil and gas prices soaring, exposing vulnerabilities in global supply chains and heightening disagreements over how fast and how fairly the shipping sector should transition away from fossil fuels.
Experts speaking during an online media briefing warned that what is at stake extends far beyond maritime regulation. The outcome could determine the pace of the global energy transition, the stability of fuel markets and whether developing countries can be protected or sidelined in the transition to clean shipping, he said.
“The Hormuz crisis has pushed up oil and gas prices, at least in the near term,” said Tristan Smith, professor of energy and transport at University College London. “Opponents of the net zero framework – led by the United States and others with a vested interest in LNG as a marine fuel – are effectively pushing to expand its use in shipping.”
Smith warned that such a change could have far-reaching consequences. “If LNG prices are already high, this would introduce a huge new source of demand from a region that does not currently rely on it, forcing competition with countries that rely on gas for power and basic energy needs. This risks pushing prices even higher, benefiting major exporters such as the US and Qatar, while creating significant losses for importing countries and countries dependent on gas-based products such as fertilisers.”
At the heart of the debate is whether the NZF – first agreed in principle in 2025 – will be adopted as a comprehensive package combining emissions standards with a global pricing mechanism or whether it will be weakened under political pressure.
For many developing countries, this difference is significant.
“The framework approved in 2025 was carefully designed as a package combining fuel standards and pricing mechanisms,” said Michael Mbaru, maritime decarbonization expert at the Office of the Climate Special Envoy for Kenya. “The pricing element is not optional – if it goes away, the whole structure goes down.”
Without that financial pillar, Mbaru warned, the burden of the transition will fall disproportionately on poorer countries. “Without it, developing countries risk facing the costs of transition without the means to manage them, making the system less fair and less investable.”
He said fragmentation – where regions adopt different rules – would make matters more complicated. “Fragmentation would increase complexity and cost, particularly for Africa, so we are committed to a single global rulebook and are not willing to reopen the framework.”
Stakes are already visible in the ground. Mbaru pointed to rising fuel prices in Kenya, where recent petrol and diesel price hikes have hit the economy, underscoring how vulnerable many countries are to fossil fuel volatility.
Beyond the economy, the talks are also shaping up to be a test of multilateralism.
Last year’s IMO meeting ended in deadlock after late intervention by the United States and its allies blocked what appeared to be a path toward adoption. Since then, the countries have re-united, and alliances – especially between African countries – have strengthened.
“The US is a major disruptive factor, but this is not just a debate of US versus climate ambition,” Mbaru said. “The shipping industry itself is demanding a global framework because it needs predictability and investment certainty.”
Indeed, the most important aspect of the current negotiations is the unusual alignment between regulators and the industry.
“The shipping industry is very resilient, but it is hampered by uncertainty,” said Femke Spiegelenberg of the Global Maritime Forum. “We know big changes are coming, but not when or how.”
For shipowners and investors, that uncertainty translates into delayed decisions and missed opportunities. “The NZF provides the certainty and tools the industry is demanding – clear rules, a level playing field and the ability to plan and invest,” he said. “It is designed to reduce risk and enable investment, and weakening it will increase uncertainty and weaken the transition.”
The industry push for regulation marks a remarkable shift in a sector traditionally wary of global regulations. But with billions already being invested in alternative fuels like green ammonia and methanol, companies are increasingly seeking clarity on the direction of travel.
“I’m completely optimistic,” said Rockford Weitz of Tufts University’s Fletcher School. “When you look at global energy markets and the billions already being invested by the industry, shipping is leading the transition.”
Weitz pointed to growing momentum in Europe and Asia, where major players are moving toward zero-carbon fuels. “To me, the future is clear: it is a zero-carbon shipping future, even if politics cause short-term disruption.”
Still, he said, politics remains a powerful force. “The Trump administration released its strategy and action plan in February 2026, with a major focus on reviving US shipbuilding,” he said. “When you look at the details, it should actually support this change – and the same applies to Saudi Arabia. Instead, ideology is getting in the way of policies that are consistent with their own economic interests, and that’s where the real opportunity lies.”
The geopolitical context is also reshaping the economic calculations of decarbonization. Rising fossil fuel prices due to conflict in the Middle East are making alternative fuels more competitive and strengthening the business case for green shipping.
Analysts say the development could accelerate investment in renewable energy infrastructure, especially in areas with abundant solar and wind resources. For countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the NZF could open up new opportunities for green industrialization – if implemented effectively.
Still, the way forward remains uncertain.
Negotiators face three broad scenarios: renewed efforts to adopt the NZF as agreed; a shift towards weak, technical-only measures supported by some countries; Or an agreement that delays decisions in search of new consensus.
There is risk in everything.
A weak framework can slow down change and deepen inequalities. A fragmented system can increase cost and complexity. And further delays could undermine investor confidence at a critical moment.
For now, experts agree on one point: the scope for decisive action is shrinking.
They say the choices made in the coming weeks will reverberate far beyond shipping lanes – shaping global trade, energy systems and climate outcomes for decades to come.
As Mbaru said, the stakes are both immediate and long-term: ensuring that the transition away from fossil fuels is not only ambitious but also justifiable.
“The framework should reduce the long-term risks of fossil fuel shocks,” he said, “while ensuring that countries with the least fiscal space do not bear the heaviest burden.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
© Inter Press Service (20260416074612) – All rights reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service
