The IMO's Intersessional Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Reductions (ISWG-GHG 21) concluded its week-long negotiations with a set of outcomes that now shape one of the most consequential political moments of the year for the maritime and fuels sector. The final working group report, reissued as MEPC 84/WP.5, was submitted to the Marine Environment Protection Committee, marking the transition from technical drafting to high-stakes political decision-making and representing one of the most significant regulatory moments of the year for the global shipping sector.
Across the week, eight J-papers were issued, and the group completed a full paragraph-by-paragraph review of the draft report, converging on a balance of progress, trade-offs, and remaining risks. The outcome reflects both growing technical convergence and persistent political divergence, with direct implications for the deployment of scalable zero- and near-zero emission fuels, including e-NG and e-methane.
The e-NG Coalition has identified eight positive developments for the sustainable fuels sector, three mixed outcomes, and four areas of material risk.
The clearest win is the outright rejection of a multiplier mechanism. The reward architecture stays as a single incentive channel, with no layered distortions and no complexity that could be played. Alongside this, the equal treatment principle held on embodied emissions :default factor submissions will not require embodied emissions accounting, a result that matters practically for how fuels are certified and compared.
The ZNZ definition stays grounded in technology and fuel neutrality, which is critical for e-methane and e-NG, which must not be disadvantaged by framework language written around other technologies. Mass balance was reconfirmed as the basis for chain-of-custody accounting under the Sustainable Fuel Certification Scheme, providing a practical and scalable approach to tracking emissions. The framework also explicitly accommodates negative greenhouse gas intensity values within the GFI calculation, reflecting a more comprehensive treatment of emissions performance.
Another key outcome is the retention of the fossil LNG comparator, which prevents even best-performing fossil LNG pathways from claiming certified actual values. This maintains a clearer distinction between fossil and low-carbon pathways. Finally, the agreement to hold an expert workshop on chain-of-custody approaches ahead of MEPC 85 signals continued technical work to refine implementation.
While progress has been made, a few outcomes introduced new dynamics without fully resolving underlying questions. The expansion of OCCS technology neutrality to include mineralization broadens the neutrality principle but simultaneously introduces new competitor routes. Statistical approaches for fossil LNG default values were accepted, narrowing the abatement gap modestly but avoiding the more damaging scenario of allowing actual values.
A central point of tension has emerged around the question of reward differentiation between fuel types. Brazil has formally raised concerns about the risk of rent-seeking associated with differentiated incentives, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo has argued that such differentiation is necessary to support the development of new fuel supply chains in emerging economies. These opposing positions are now clearly reflected in the report and are likely to shape the political debate at MEPC84.
Despite important areas of convergence, several risks remain unresolved and could influence the direction of the framework. The endorsement of an LNG pathway combined with upstream carbon capture and storage introduces a new fossil-based competitor route, with its environmental performance still subject to further technical scrutiny. At the same time, the absence of an agreed IMO procedure for recognizing renewable electricity claims under power purchase agreements creates uncertainty around one of the most significant cost drivers for e-fuels, with decisions deferred to MEPC 85 or later.
Discussions on carbon source criteria remain contested, particularly among major hydrocarbon-exporting countries, indicating that this issue is far from settled. In addition, procedural delays surrounding the Net Zero Fund raise concerns about the timing of financial incentives, with some scenarios suggesting that reward flows could be postponed for several years depending on governance decisions.
Several textual developments in the report are particularly relevant for the next phase of discussions. New language on OCCS highlights concerns that current parameters may not fully ensure technology neutrality, especially with regard to permanence and traceability requirements. Brazil’s inclusion of explicit anti-rent-seeking language introduces a strong argument against differentiated reward structures, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s contribution provides a counter-narrative centered on enabling equitable supply chain development.
At the same time, the procedural status of the ZNZ methodology remains limited, as the relevant document is referenced for future work but not formally anchored in the report. This distinction may affect its influence in upcoming negotiations.
The working group phase is over. What happens next at MEPC 84 is a political fight, and the sector needs to show up to it prepared. Adoption of the IMO Net Zero Framework is within reach — but only if delegations supportive of zero-emission fuels hold firm on reward design, resist attempts to reopen settled comparators, and make the case for differentiated incentives with the developing-country arguments that are now on the record.
The technical groundwork is largely in place. What remains is ensuring that it translates into a framework that is credible, investable, and immune to the delay tactics that have already cost the Net Zero Fund weeks of procedural time. The cost-of-capital gap between emerging and developed markets is not an abstraction, it is the reason differentiated incentives exist, and it deserves to be at the center of every bilateral conversation this week.
Beyond the negotiations themselves, momentum continues to build across the wider ecosystem. Earlier this year, over 100signatories across the value chain, including ports, fuel producers, technology providers, infrastructure players and international organizations, issued a joint Call to Action - with the e-NG Coalition among the signatories- urging governments to adopt a credible and ambitious IMO Net Zero Framework in 2026. The letter highlighted the need for a binding global framework anchored in a clear compliance mechanism, a well‑capitalized and operational Net Zero Fund, robust and harmonized lifecycle emissions accounting, and a reward structure capable of scaling zero‑emission fuels across all regions, including emerging markets. It also underscored the need for regulatory predictability to unlock final investment decisions and ensure early movers are not penalized. Covered by international media such as the Financial Times, the initiative sends a unified signal from industry: the transition is not constrained by technology or willingness to act, but by the absence of a credible, investment‑ready regulatory framework. It reflects a growing convergence across stakeholders that large‑scale decarbonization is achievable and already underway — provided policy delivers the conditions needed to reach deployment tipping points.
The message to regulators is direct: industry is moving, but without clarity on reward design, certification and long-term signals, capital will not follow at the pace required to scale global zero-emission fuel supply chains.
The global maritime transition has moved from ambition to operational detail. The decisions taken at MEPC 84 will determine whether the framework delivers the investment signal the sector needs — or whether another cycle of negotiations passes without one. The moment to act on that is now.
----------------------------------------------------
Joint Call for Action: A call for Member States to adopt the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework in 2026
Financial Times Article: Maritime and ports businesses push for global shipping climate deal
For more information, contact Mariana Tostes - mariana.tostes@eng-coalition.org
%20(1200%20x%20475%20px)%20(5).png)
%20(1200%20x%20475%20px)%20(4).png)
%20(1200%20x%20475%20px).png)