[Answered] The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) recently addressed shipping industry emissions. Critically analyze the key decisions taken at the 83rd session of the IMO’s MEPC regarding shipping emissions. Briefly discuss the positions and responses of the U.S., oil-exporting nations, traditional maritime powerhouses, and India to these decisions.

Introduction

The shipping industry accounts for approximately 2.8% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, amounting to around one billion metric tonnes annually. If it were a country, global shipping would rank as the sixth-largest emitter. Recognizing this, the 83rd session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) deliberated on adopting a Market-Based Measure (MBM) to address emissions. The meeting was a turning point, proposing the world’s first mandatory global carbon levy framework for shipping.

Key Decisions at MEPC-83

1. Adoption of a Hybrid MBM Model: MEPC-83 voted (63 in favour, 16 against, 22 abstentions) to adopt Singapore’s proposal, which was based on India’s ‘bridging mechanism’. This model incorporates a Greenhouse Gas Fuel Standard (GFS), combining penalties for underperformance and rewards for surplus emission savings.
2. Rewarding Green Transition: The adopted framework encourages the use of Zero or Near-Zero (ZNZ) fuels, aligning emissions intensity targets with IMO’s 2023 GHG Strategy, which aims for net-zero emissions by 2050.
3. Pending Ratification and Challenges: The decision now awaits formal ratification via an amendment to Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention, requiring a two-thirds majority and no significant objections (covering 50% of global shipping tonnage) for adoption.

Global Responses

1. United States: The U.S. under the Trump-era climate disengagement did not participate in the MEPC deliberations. It warned of “reciprocal measures” against the EU-backed carbon levy, reflecting deep resistance to uniform global regulations.
2. Oil-Exporting Nations: Led by Saudi Arabia, these nations opposed strong measures fearing threats to fossil fuel markets. They argued for preserving hydrocarbon-centric shipping, prioritizing market protection over climate goals.
3. Traditional Maritime Powerhouses: Countries like Greece expressed skepticism, questioning the economic feasibility of carbon levies. Norway and Scandinavia, having invested in early decarbonization, demanded a surplus credit system to reward past efforts.

India’s Position:

1. India proposed a “bridging mechanism”, focusing the levy only on under-compliant ships while rewarding ZNZ fuel use.
2. India played a pivotal diplomatic role, co-steering the final hybrid model adopted by the MEPC.
3. As per UNCTAD, India’s trade impact will remain modest until 2030 (4.98–8.09% increase in costs), while green hydrogen investments under the National Hydrogen Mission may turn India into a global clean fuel exporter.

Conclusion

The MEPC-83 decision is not yet final, but it marks a critical milestone in climate governance. If implemented, it would make shipping the first truly global sector governed by binding emissions regulations. While opposition from fossil fuel lobbies and maritime traditionalists poses challenges, the new framework has the potential to reshape global maritime trade and position India as a key green shipping stakeholder in the coming decades.