The oceans are the source of life and the great unifier of our distant civilisations. Civilisations are built on trade and relations, much of which happens via shipping, today. Over the last few centuries, sea trade and Naval power have redefined the global order and landscape. However, as we move further away from the age of sails, the global shipping industry has become one of the biggest polluters of our planet. Many attempts have been made to address this issue; progress has been slow. This week, fresh attempts have been made on the global stage, only to be pushed back by a handful of powerful nations, who would rather see their ill-advised short-term progress and geopolitical contests succeed, over the long-term safety of the planet and our oceans.

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) was pushing a new piece of international legislation to establish a legally binding framework to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships globally, aiming for net-zero emissions by or around a target year of 2050. The effort, championed by many small coastal states, scientists, academia and some segments of the industry, was expected to become the first in the world to combine mandatory emission limits and GHG pricing across an entire industry sector.  The legislation is named the IMO Net-zero Framework. This legislation was first approved by the Marine Environment Protection Committee during its 83rd session (MEPC 83) from 7-11 April this year, and they include a new fuel standard for ships and a global pricing mechanism for emissions. These measures, set to be formally adopted in October this year before entry into force in 2027, will become mandatory for large ocean-going ships over 5,000 gross tonnages, which emit 85% of the total CO2 emissions from international shipping. The legislation also included a new chapter on prevention of air pollution from ships to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Currently, MARPOL’s Annex VI has 108 parties, covering 97% of the world’s merchant shipping fleet by tonnage, and already includes mandatory energy efficiency requirements for ships.

The key elements of the IMO Net-Zero Framework would require ships to comply with: “Global fuel standard: Ships must reduce, over time, their annual greenhouse gas fuel intensity (GFI) – that is, how much GHG is emitted for each unit of energy used. This is calculated using a well-to-wake approach.  A global economic measure: Ships emitting above GFI thresholds will have to acquire remedial units to balance its deficit emissions, while those using zero or near-zero GHG technologies will be eligible for financial rewards,” the IMO said. 

Meanwhile, to ensure compliance, the legislation would have two levels of compliance with GHG Fuel Intensity targets: a Base Target and a Direct Compliance Target at which ships would be eligible to earn ‘surplus units’. This would allow ships that emit above the set thresholds to balance their emissions deficit by, either transferring surplus units from other ships; using surplus units they have already banked, or using remedial units acquired through contributions to the IMO Net-Zero Fund.

However, an extraordinary session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO which met recently was to seek its members approval for the new legislation and to amend the MARPOL. But alas, this progressive step towards making our globe more sustainable and safer was torpedoed by the US President Donald Trump, whose verbal sabre rattling threatened the IMO Member Nations not to move forward with the first of its kind global carbon tax, and threatened to impose sanctions on countries that supported the measure. During the IMO MEPC meeting, Members voted to postpone approving a plan to curb shipping emissions. The coerced postponement of the adoption of shipping carbon tax is a clear sight of how ‘might is right’ has overshadowed the ‘rules-based order’ and the multilateralism which many small states like Sri Lanka is dependent on to avoid being treaded on by powerful nations. Sri Lanka, despite its weak economic standing, and market-risk, should at least find the guts to voice its concern about such blackmail by powerful nations such as the United States. If we keep quiet, what more will we be forced to endure? Afterall, it is small coastal states like Sri Lanka that have to face the brunt of climate change and the rise of ocean levels due to global warming.