The US maintains that any replacement mechanism should not be created through amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, nor should it be administered as an IMO fund or financed through revenues from a global carbon tax, 

According to Ship & Bunker, the US has indicated that it could consider an alternative to the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) proposed climate fund, while maintaining its opposition to any financing mechanism administered by the UN shipping agency. This shift in position was revealed at the 22nd International Symposium on the Future of the Global Shipping Industry (ISWG-GHG) in London, where the US delegation reiterated its "principled, firm, and, yes, redline opposition to any IMO-administered fund", but stated that it was prepared to examine other structures.

Brazil's idea

One of these is Brazil's idea for a temporary "facility" that would be separate from the IMO Net-Zero Fund, which was approved in April 2025.  Under the Brazilian model, implementation could be carried out outside of the IMO, with an international financial institution potentially administering the facility in accordance with IMO guidelines. One possible model that was cited was the World Bank, while strategic oversight could remain with a separate governing structure.  

 Canada's proposed "roster of funds"

The US has suggested that such a facility could be smaller, more flexible, and quicker to establish than a permanent, IMO-administered fund. Canada's proposed "roster of funds", public-private partnership models put forward by Japan, voluntary government or industry support for selected projects, and direct contributions to existing IMO programmes are also to be examined by Washington.

Related: IMO MEPC 84: Atlantic ECA was approved, giving the net-zero framework a new lease of life

Washington's demands 

The US did not endorse any of the alternatives, instead stating that the proposals would be returned to Washington for further consideration during the intersessional period.  The US maintains that any replacement mechanism should not be created through amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, nor should it be administered as an IMO fund or financed through revenues from a global carbon tax, as proposed by Washington.  The need for a separate financial reward mechanism for cleaner marine fuels was also questioned by the US. Instead, it argued that a more gradual reduction pathway for greenhouse gas fuel intensity could allow ships to benefit from selling surplus compliance credits

Proposals of the International Chamber of Shipping ( ICS )

Proposals from the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) include financial rewards for ships that use fuels with low or near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The IMO Net-Zero Fund will provide payments under the current draft proposals.  The framework, which was approved at MEPC 83 in April 2025, combines a global marine fuel standard with a greenhouse gas emissions pricing mechanism. The formal adoption, originally scheduled for October 2025, has been postponed by one year.  

It is noteworthy that, in April and May 2026, member states reopened discussions at MEPC 84. MEPC 85 is scheduled to take place from 30 November to 3 December, with the extraordinary MEPC session due to resume on 4 December, pending confirmation.  

#ICS #MARPOL Annex VI #US #IMO Net-Zero Fund, #Canada's proposed #Ship & Bunker# (ISWG-GHG) #Brazil's idea #MEPC 84. MEPC 85  #IMO-run shipping climate fund.