DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, Apr 16 2026 (IPS) - As global shipping braces 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 a proposed Net-Zero Framework (NZF) aimed at decarbonising one of the world’s most polluting industries.
The talks, convened under the International Maritime Organization (IMO), come at a moment of acute uncertainty. A crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has sent oil and gas prices surging, exposing vulnerabilities in global supply chains and sharpening 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, they said, could determine the pace of the global energy transition, the stability of fuel markets, and whether developing countries are protected or sidelined in the shift to cleaner shipping.
“The Hormuz crisis has pushed up oil and gas prices, at least in the near term,” said Tristan Smith, Professor of Energy & Transport at University College London. “Opponents of the Net Zero Framework – led by the United States and others with vested interests in LNG as a marine fuel – are effectively pushing to expand its use in shipping.”
Smith warned that such a shift could have far-reaching consequences. “If LNG prices are already high, this would introduce a major new source of demand from a sector that does not currently rely on it, forcing competition with countries that depend on gas for electricity and basic energy needs. That risks driving prices even higher, benefiting major exporters like the US and Qatar, while creating significant disadvantages for importing countries and those reliant 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 diluted under political pressure.
For many developing countries, the distinction is critical.
“The framework approved in 2025 was carefully designed as a package combining fuel standards and a pricing mechanism,” said Michael Mbaru, a maritime decarbonisation expert at the Office of Kenya’s Climate Special Envoy. “The pricing element is not optional – if it goes away, the whole framework goes away.”
Without that financial pillar, Mbaru cautioned, the burden of transition would fall disproportionately on poorer nations. “Without it, developing countries risk facing the costs of transition without the tools to manage them, making the system less fair and less investable.”
He added that fragmentation – where regions adopt separate rules – would further complicate matters. “Fragmentation would increase complexity and costs, especially for Africa, so we remain committed to a single global rulebook and are not willing to reopen the framework.”
The stakes are already visible on the ground. Mbaru pointed to rising fuel prices in Kenya, where recent increases in petrol and diesel costs have rippled through the economy, underscoring how vulnerable many countries remain to fossil fuel volatility.
Beyond economics, the negotiations are also shaping up as a test of multilateralism.
Last year’s IMO meeting ended in stalemate after a late intervention by the United States and its allies disrupted what had appeared to be a path toward adoption. Since then, countries have regrouped, and alliances – particularly among African nations – have strengthened.
“The US is a major disruptive factor, but this is not simply a US versus climate ambition debate,” Mbaru said. “The shipping industry itself is calling for a global framework because it needs predictability and investment certainty.”
Indeed, one of the most striking aspects of the current negotiations is the unusual alignment between regulators and industry.
“The shipping industry is very resilient, but it is constrained by uncertainty,” said Femke Spiegelenberg of the Global Maritime Forum. “We know major 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 asking for – clear rules, a level playing field, and the ability to plan and invest,” she said. “It is designed to reduce risk and enable investment, and weakening it would increase uncertainty and undermine the transition.”
The industry’s push for regulation marks a notable shift in a sector traditionally wary of global rules. But with billions already being invested in alternative fuels such as green ammonia and methanol, companies are increasingly seeking clarity on the direction of travel.
“I’m cautiously optimistic,” said Rockford Weitz of Tufts University’s Fletcher School. “When you look at global energy markets and the billions already being invested by 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 creates short-term disruption.”
Yet politics, he noted, remains a powerful force. “The Trump administration released its strategy and a February 2026 action plan, with a major focus on revitalising US shipbuilding,” he said. “When you look at the details, it should actually support this transition – and the same applies to Saudi Arabia. Instead, ideology is getting in the way of policies that align with their own economic interests, and that’s where the real opportunity lies.”
The geopolitical context is also reshaping the economic calculus of decarbonisation. Rising fossil fuel prices, triggered by conflict in the Middle East, are making alternative fuels more competitive and strengthening the business case for green shipping.
Analysts say the developments could accelerate investment in renewable energy infrastructure, particularly in regions with abundant solar and wind resources. For countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the NZF could unlock new opportunities for green industrialisation – if it is implemented effectively.
Still, the path forward remains uncertain.
Negotiators face three broad scenarios: a renewed push to adopt the NZF as agreed; a shift toward weaker, technical-only measures favoured by some countries; or a compromise that delays decisions while seeking a new consensus.
Each carries risks.
A weakened framework could slow the transition and deepen inequalities. A fragmented system could increase costs and complexity. And further delays could erode investor confidence at a critical moment.
For now, experts agree on one point: the window for decisive action is narrowing.
The choices made in the coming weeks, they say, will reverberate far beyond the shipping lanes – shaping global trade, energy systems and climate outcomes for decades to come.
As Mbaru put it, the stakes are both immediate and long-term: ensuring that the transition away from fossil fuels is not only ambitious but also fair.
“The framework must reduce long-term exposure to fossil fuel shocks,” he said, “while ensuring that countries with the least fiscal space are not left carrying the heaviest burden.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
