Why Saudi Arabia & the US Shot Down the IMO's Net Zero Bill

A landmark agreement to decarbonise global shipping has been postponed for at least a year after the International Maritime Organisation voted to delay adoption of its Net Zero Framework.

The motion to adjourn passed by a narrow margin on 17 October, with delegates from more than a hundred countries voting at the Marine Environment Protection Committee's extraordinary session in London.

In total, 57 delegates voted in favour of adjournment and 49 voted against it, while 21 abstained entirely.

The outcome represents a significant setback for what would have been the world's first internationally mandated emissions reduction targets for the shipping industry.

The deal, which was initially agreed in principle in April after a decade of negotiations, included several measures to encourage sustainable shipping, including introducing fines for any companies that did not at least start to use low-carbon fuels by 2028.

How the US used trade to influence voters

The delay followed intensive lobbying from the US administration, which had threatened countries with tariffs if they supported the framework.

US President Donald Trump called the plan a "green scam" in a post on Truth Social, declaring the US would not tolerate "increased prices on American Consumers". Back in the US, Secretary of State Marco Rubio went on to describe the postponement as a "huge win" for Trump's government.

Delegations from developing countries reported what they described as "bullying" and "unprecedented" pressure from Washington, with threats of sanctions alongside tariff warnings.

Even some island nations – which are at particular threat from rising sea levels – abstained from voting, leading to the lengthy adjournment.

The Bahamas and Antigua & Barbuda, both of which agreed to the deal's terms in April, were two countries that abstained.

A delegate from the island states group subsequently told the BBC that these nations particularly rely on the US for trade and had been leaned on heavily by the Trump administration to change their position.

Saudi Arabia's role in the collapsed talks

Saudi Arabia brought the motion to adjourn to a vote on the final day of talks, when countries were scheduled to approve the framework.

The chairman of the negotiations confirmed that this meant the agreement was not approved, as key timelines for the treaty would require revision.

Ralph Regenvanu, Minister for Climate Change for the Republic of Vanuatu, said that Saudi Arabia's motion was "unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change".

Mr. Regenvanu, who has been a vocal advocate for climate justice in recent years, saw the bill as imperfect but far better than a future without a framework.

"We came to London in reluctant support of the IMO's Net Zero Framework," he explained. "While it lacks the ambition that climate science demands, it does mark a significant step."

China, which had initially supported the deal in April, also agreed to the delay.

What the framework would have achieved

The Net Zero Framework would have required ship owners to use increasingly cleaner fuels from 2028 or face financial penalties. The mechanism would apply to vessels over 5,000 gross tonnes, establishing a market-based system of credits and penalties.

Ships exceeding emission limits would need to purchase remedial units, whilst low-emission vessels could earn and trade surplus credits.

Revenue would flow into an IMO Net-Zero Fund intended to support clean fuel adoption and assist developing countries with the transition.

Shipping currently accounts for 3% of global emissions, with 90% of all goods transported by sea. Without intervention, the IMO previously estimated emissions could grow between 10% and 150% by 2050.

Industry seeks regulatory certainty

The shipping industry had broadly supported the framework as it would provide consistent global standards for investment planning.

Thomas Kazakos, Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Shipping, said: "We are disappointed that member states have not been able to agree a way forward at this meeting."

Thomas added: "Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments."

IMO Secretary General Arsenio Dominguez issued a closing plea following the vote, stating: "As we come to an end my plea to you is not to repeat the way we have approached this meeting in other discussions for future discussions."

Arsenio urged delegates to use the year to "negotiate and talk and come to consensus" before reconvening in 2026.

The UK and most EU nations voted to continue the talks, though Greece abstained contrary to the broader EU position.

Blánaid Sheeran, policy officer at environmental NGO Opportunity Green, warned: "A delay in action may require changes to the text of agreement that undermine the planned timeline, and could revert years of work to date."

Arsenio urged delegates to use the year to "negotiate and talk and come to consensus" before reconvening in 2026.

The UK and most EU nations voted to continue the talks, though Greece abstained contrary to the broader EU position.

Blánaid Sheeran, policy officer at environmental NGO Opportunity Green, warned: "A delay in action may require changes to the text of agreement that undermine the planned timeline, and could revert years of work to date."

• ​​​​​​​Interested in learning more about net zero? Join us at Sustainability LIVE: The Net Zero Summit in London on 4-5 March 2026 for in-depth discussions with leading sustainability experts. Secure your ticket now and save over £200.