Report on the Adjournment of the IMO Net Zero Framework and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A resolution to adjourn discussions on a UN-backed Net Zero Framework for the global shipping industry was passed at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The one-year delay, driven by opposition from the United States, represents a significant setback for international climate diplomacy. This development directly undermines progress on several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 13 (Climate Action) by stalling decarbonization in a major emitting sector, and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by highlighting a severe breakdown in multilateral cooperation.

Derailment of the International Maritime Climate Agreement

The decision to postpone the framework’s adoption followed a week of contentious negotiations. The key events leading to this outcome are as follows:

• A provisional Net Zero Framework, including a levy on shipping carbon emissions, was agreed upon by a majority of nations in April.
• The Trump administration publicly opposed the agreement, referring to the proposed levy as a “global green new scam tax.”
• Saudi Arabia introduced a resolution to adjourn discussions on the framework’s adoption for one year.
• The resolution passed with 57 countries in favor, 49 against, and 21 abstentions, effectively halting the legally-binding implementation of the climate measure.

Direct Impact on SDG 13: Climate Action

The failure to adopt the framework presents a direct challenge to the achievement of SDG 13, which calls for urgent action to combat climate change. The shipping industry accounts for approximately 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions and facilitates 80% of world trade.

1. Delayed Decarbonization: The postponement stalls a critical regulatory mechanism designed to reduce emissions from the maritime sector, making it more difficult to align the industry with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
2. Financial Mechanism Stalled: The proposed carbon levy was projected to generate up to $15 billion annually from 2030. These funds, intended to finance the transition to cleaner fuels and support climate adaptation, are now inaccessible, impeding investment in climate solutions.
3. Compromised Global Climate Negotiations: Officials, including the climate change minister of Vanuatu, stated the delay would make subsequent international discussions, such as the UN COP30 climate summit, “more difficult,” weakening the global momentum for climate action.

Erosion of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The proceedings at the IMO meeting demonstrated a significant erosion of the principles of global partnership and effective multilateralism central to SDG 17.

• Breakdown in Multilateral Conduct: Diplomats described the negotiations as “utterly horrendous,” citing unprecedented bilateral pressure from the U.S. and its allies to block the framework. The Brazilian delegation noted the use of “methods that should not ever be used among sovereign nations.”
• Fragmentation of Alliances: The European Union, traditionally a unified bloc, fractured during the vote, with Greece and Cyprus abstaining while other members voted against the adjournment.
• Damage to Institutional Integrity: The IMO Secretary-General acknowledged the divisive nature of the meeting, concluding there were “no winners” and pleading with delegates not to repeat the approach, thereby casting doubt on the institution’s ability to foster consensus-based solutions.

Broader Consequences for Sustainable Development

The adjournment has cascading negative effects on other interconnected Sustainable Development Goals.

• SDG 14 (Life Below Water): By failing to curb maritime emissions, the international community misses a key opportunity to mitigate ocean acidification, a direct consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 that threatens marine ecosystems and biodiversity.
• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): The lack of a clear, legally-binding framework creates regulatory uncertainty. This discourages the significant private sector investment required for the innovation and development of green shipping technologies and sustainable infrastructure, a sentiment echoed by the International Chamber of Shipping.
• SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): The delay weakens the market signals necessary to accelerate the research, development, and deployment of sustainable marine fuels, slowing progress on clean energy adoption within a vital global industry.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   • SDG 13: Climate Action: This is the most central SDG. The article’s entire focus is on the failure to pass a climate agreement aimed at reducing carbon emissions from the global shipping industry to combat climate change. The proposed “levy on shipping carbon emissions” and the “Net Zero Framework” are direct measures to take urgent action on climate change.
   • SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article details the breakdown of international cooperation and diplomacy. It describes the UN-backed process at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the initial provisional agreement by a majority of countries (including the EU, UK, India, China, and Brazil), and the subsequent derailment due to political pressure. This directly relates to strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing global partnerships for sustainable development.
   • SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: The discussion concerns the global shipping industry, a critical component of global infrastructure and trade. The article mentions the need for the industry to “decarbonise the maritime sector,” which involves upgrading infrastructure and adopting cleaner technologies, aligning with the goal of building resilient infrastructure and fostering sustainable industrialization.
   • SDG 14: Life Below Water: Although not explicitly mentioned, regulating and reducing carbon emissions from shipping has a direct impact on the health of oceans. CO2 emissions contribute to ocean acidification, which harms marine ecosystems. Therefore, efforts to control these emissions are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The proposed “Net Zero Framework” and the legally-binding levy on shipping emissions represent a clear attempt to integrate climate change measures into international and industry-wide policy and strategy. The failure to adopt this framework is a direct setback for this target.
   • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. The article provides a stark example of a failure in policy coherence. The actions of the US, as described, directly undermined a multilateral agreement supported by a majority of nations, demonstrating a lack of coherence in global efforts to address climate change.
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development. The IMO meetings are a platform for this global partnership. The article highlights the fracturing of this partnership, describing the talks as “utterly horrendous” and the room as “immensely tense and divided,” with one delegation noting the use of “methods that should not ever be used among sovereign nations.”
   • Target 9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable. The article quotes the International Chamber of Shipping stating that the “industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonise the maritime sector.” This directly points to the need to retrofit the shipping industry to make it sustainable, which is the core of this target. The stalled agreement creates uncertainty that hinders this progress.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   • Indicator for SDG 13: The article states that the shipping industry “contributes an estimated 3 per cent to the emissions behind climate change.” This percentage serves as a baseline indicator of the sector’s contribution to total greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed levy was expected to “generate revenues of up to $15bn per year from 2030,” which is a quantifiable financial indicator for climate action financing.
   • Indicator for SDG 17: The voting records from the IMO meetings serve as a direct indicator of the level of international agreement and partnership. The article provides specific numbers: “57 countries voted to postpone, while 49 voted against and 21 abstained,” which can be compared to the previous vote where “63 members were in favour, 16 countries opposed and 24 abstained.” This change in votes indicates a weakening of the global partnership on this issue.
   • Indicator for SDG 9: The article mentions the plan to impose a carbon price on emissions for “ships bigger than 5,000 tons.” The adoption of such a carbon pricing mechanism and the number of ships/companies complying with it would be a clear indicator of the industry’s progress towards sustainable practices. The failure to adopt it is an indicator of a lack of progress.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ft.com