Negotiators at the International Maritime Organisation’s 22nd Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships signalled fresh momentum towards concluding the organisation’s Net‑Zero Framework, even as deep disagreements remain over key design features. The session, which closed in London on 4 September, was described in a report by reports dated 11 September 2026.
Delegates emerged from the four‑day meeting with renewed conviction that a final framework is attainable, reflecting progress on procedural matters and an intensified focus on deliverables. That momentum, however, sits alongside unresolved disputes that negotiators warned cannot be papered over if the framework is to secure broad acceptance.
At the heart of the disagreement are three interlinked issues: whether to adopt a mandatory carbon pricing instrument, how any revenues would be distributed, and what mechanisms would be put in place to assist developing states. Each of these matters has proved politically sensitive, with positions diverging on equity, competitiveness and the means to deliver finance for transition.
Negotiators acknowledged movement on some technical and drafting points but made plain that the political choices remain the decisive obstacles. The report underlined that the renewed momentum does not yet amount to agreement and that the talks are now entering a phase in which political trade‑offs will be unavoidable.
Carbon pricing and revenue allocation
Carbon pricing was the most prominent fault line at the London session, with proponents urging a predictable price signal to drive investment and opponents cautioning about impacts on trade and states with limited capacity to absorb new costs. Linked to that debate is the question of revenue allocation, where views differ on whether funds should be channelled through existing multilateral mechanisms, a dedicated maritime fund, or a hybrid approach that balances climate mitigation, adaptation and supportive measures.
Support for developing states
Closely tied to revenue questions is the demand for robust support for developing states, which has shaped negotiating positions and complicated consensus building. Delegates representing those countries stressed that any framework must include clear, accessible and adequate financial and technical assistance to prevent widening disparities as the sector decarbonises.
Participants described the London meeting as one in which technical progress was used to frame the remaining political choices rather than to resolve them; that framing has focused attention on the trade‑offs between environmental ambition and equity. The report makes clear that while the mood at the end of the session was constructive, the substantive gaps on pricing, funds and support are likely to require further intersessional work and political engagement at senior levels before a final text can be adopted.
The outcome of these continuing negotiations matters because the Net‑Zero Framework is intended to set the rules and incentives that will guide shipping’s transition over the coming decades. Observers will be watching how member states reconcile the need for an effective decarbonisation instrument with concerns about competitiveness and differentiated responsibilities, and whether the IMO can design a package that secures both ambition and buy‑in.
For now, the London session has reinforced two messages: delegates believe a final framework remains within reach, and the remaining disagreements are political as much as technical. Sources indicated the session and its key tensions in an item published on 11 September 2026, noting the combined effect of progress and persistent divergence as the talks move forward.