The IMO will remain the key to shipping’s decarbonization, but the regulator’s member governments need to step forward with more ambitious plans and support. “We are fortunate to have the IMO, which will be the ultimate party to define the requirements for decarbonization,” said Ocean Network Express chief executive Jeremy Nixon. “Although COP26 didn’t come up with anything too significant to move the needle, we hope that the MEPC discussions will lead to some clear directions on R&D fuel surcharges, market-based measures and a range of other issues.”

He told a webinar that while COP26 had been disappointing, shipping should not be held back by that. “While major breakthroughs couldn’t be made in Glasgow, the discussion among the shipping industry were very useful,” he said. “I believe industry is ahead of government now and we shouldn’t rely on government but move on as an industry and work at an IMO level to get new regulations and standards.”

BIMCO president Sabrina Chao added that while COP26 was “in line with expectations”, it was up to industry to make changes. “We can’t really expect a drastic coming together from governments,” she said. “But this is where IMO has a role to play. “We have to look to the IMO to ensure its strategy is on track and that industry’s ambition for decarbonization remains on course.” It was important to recognize that decarbonizing the industry was a joint effort by government, fuel providers, technology providers and the industry, she said. “The maritime industry is eager to move towards zero carbon and is exploring the alternatives. But without the availability of zero carbon fuels, infrastructure, and regulations, the industry has few options for the near future.”

But Mr Nixon added that while shipping was difficult to abate because of the carbon intensity it required, many companies had made “significant progress” in designing and developing solutions that would give options for green fuels to be used when they became available. “As an industry we have a lot of collaboration trying to find solutions. That is the way we need to go.” But doing so required more clarity around market-based measures and future fuel levies. “One thing shipping needs is a global, predictable form of regulation,” he said. “What we really must do is concentrate more on the IMO which is effectively our mini-COP, which looks after the whole of shipping as a regulator, and which designs the technical rules. That is really where we must make the progress. Those 170 governments have to really work at a technical and regulatory level to move forward.”

With the industry leading the way on decarbonization, that meant the role of governments was to put in place a “sensible framework” that would allow the decarbonization of existing ships and accelerate the use of future green fuels. “Government regulation must be clear and consistent because shipping relies on future regulation to set out its goals,” said Yang Ming chairman Cheng-Mount Cheng. “If the regulation is not clear it is very difficult for us to comply.”

While the IMO could only be as strong as the governments that define its policy, it was the right entity and needed those governments to listen carefully to what industry was saying, Mr Nixon said. “It must at least meet the COP26 objectives for the industry,” he said. For Mr Nixon, the key issues are a research and development fund and the introduction of market-based measures. “We are already pushing IMO to do more in terms of the R&D fund, which we will finance as an industry,” he said. “We will put $2 per tonne on fuel oil to collect $5bn that could be used to help finance the collaboration projects.” But this should not be confused with market-based measures. “It is simply a self-financed fund. We need IMO to sign off on that and get it running.”

The second issue was market-based measures and understanding that the industry would get to net-zero by 2050. “The IMO has not committed us to that yet but many across the industry are saying that should be the ambition.”