The US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and their allies have spearheaded a push to alter the approval process for a hard-fought green shipping deal, which experts say could jeopardise the landmark pact at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) talks in London this week.
If approved, the procedural changes would make it harder for the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework (NZF) to come into effect, as it would require support from countries representing half of the world’s shipping fleet.
After years of discussions, governments provisionally agreed the NZF in April, in which they pledged to penalise polluting ships and uses the money to fund the transition to cleaner fuel. The policy is the world’s first global emissions pricing on any sector. At talks in London this week, countries are meeting to discuss how to carry the NZF forward.
Procedural roadblock to shipping deal
The US and its allies want to shift away from a system of tacit approval where, after the NZF is approved at the IMO talks, its rules automatically come into force unless a certain number of countries object. They prefer explicit approval instead, meaning it would not come into force unless enough governments – representing a certain percentage of the world’s shipping fleet – actively indicate support for it.
Emma Fenton, senior director of climate diplomacy at nonprofit policy group Opportunity Green, told Climate Home News that the US’s proposed change “risks undermining the NZF’s ambitions, delays the maritime transition and does not meet the scale or the pace of action that the climate crisis demands”.
Bryan Comer, maritime director at the International Council on Clean Transportation called it “an unnecessary procedural roadblock”.
The US has been pressuring governments not to support the NZF, which they provisionally agreed at the last set of talks in April. Last week, the US threatened supportive government officials and their shipowners with sanctions, visa restrictions, tariffs and port fees.
These measures that would hit small nations with big shipping registries, particularly those whose ships sail frequently to the USA or who have office offices there, the hardest. Two such governments, Bahamas and Liberia – have reversed their support for the NZF and have been actively opposing it this week.
Green shipping deal at risk
While in April some climate campaigners said the NZF lacked ambition and Pacific Island nations abstained from supporting it, others celebrated it a “groundbreaking moment which should signal a turning of the tide on greenhouse gases from global shipping”.
The deal was set to be officially approved by governments at talks at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) this week, with discussions limited to minor changes to the text. The head of the IMO – Panamanian Arsenio Dominguez – told governments on Tuesday that the text was “balanced” and that not agreeing to it would cause uncertainty and lead to a patchwork of regional and national green shipping regulations which would “increase the costs of this transition in the long run”.
Despite the US threats, government statements at an opening plenary on Tuesday suggested that support for the measure had grown since April – with Pacific and other nations who had previously abstained backing the proposal.
A US, Saudi and Russia-led attempt to oppose the adoption of the agenda failed and the talks’ chair – Liberian Harry Conway – introduced a three-minute time limit and urged governments to stop repetitive interventions in an attempt to prevent delays, joking that offenders would have to donate money to the IMO if they kept repeating themselves.
How high-risk biofuels could sink a flagship climate law for global shipping
Tacit or explicit approval
But on Wednesday morning, the US proposed not to use the tacit approval, a system which stipulates that, after agreements, amendments have a ten-month cooling off period.
During this period, the deal can be cancelled if a third of the nations signed up to the relevant IMO treaty – in this case the countries signed up to the Marpol Annex 6 treaty – object. It can also be cancelled if nations whose ship registries make up half of the world’s fleet by weight actively oppose it.
The US negotiator – who IMO rules say cannot be named – proposed explicit acceptance, which puts the onus on the governments supporting the NZF. Under this system, it would come into force until six months after two-thirds of nations, representing more than half the world’s shipping fleet, actively “communicated” to the IMO that they accept the deal.
“The usual tacit acceptance method is not appropriate for the potential entry into force of such significant measures”, the US negotiator said. They were supported by just over 20 governments, mainly from oil-reliant states like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Nigeria as well as Turkiye, Morocco, Argentina and Paraguay.
Their proposal was opposed by a larger group of nations, including Western and Pacific countries, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, Namibia and Kenya. The Danish negotiator protested that switching to the “time consuming and inefficient” explicit acceptance procedure would throw off the NZF’s timeline and reopening the text would mean “starting all over again”.
“The regulatory framework is ready. It is mature. The decision to move forward was already made in April with the approval of the amendments and, in reality, accepting an explicit acceptance procedure would, in reality, mean no to realising the NZF”, she said.
-
How high-risk biofuels could sink a flagship climate law for global shipping
New rules on shipping fuel emissions must account for their indirect impacts on forests and food production, otherwise owners may rush to use soy and palm oil to power their vessels -
Oil states accused of using scare tactics in bid to sink green shipping deal
Saudi Arabia, Iran and other oil-reliant countries are campaigning to stop the adoption of the IMO’s Net-zero Framework in October -
Governments agree green shipping targets and fees for missing them
Ship owners who fail to reduce emissions intensity 30% by 2035 will have to pay into a “net zero fund” to clean up shipping through green fuels
The Brazilian negotiator said tacit approval has been the default since 1973 because explicit acceptance “simply does not work”. The internal procedures for national governments to ratify amendments are “complicated”, he said, and “may take longer than action requires”, particularly as the shipping industry needs “predictability” on what the rules will be.
The negotiator from the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu said he was “surprised” that the US had not made its proposal before the talks. “We are of the view that the requested change at this stage is not conducive of a transparent and predictable process”, he said.
Talks’ chair U-turns under pressure
After nearly two hours of government statements, Conway said that from what he had heard it was “the will of the committee to proceed with the tacit approval”.
But that conclusion drew further complaints from the US and allies, who repeated their arguments. The US accused Conway and the IMO secretariat of not being “neutral” – which they later firmly denied. Russia’s negotiator accepted that “perhaps those who spoke in the majority were indeed for tacit acceptance” but argued that because the NZF is so “significant” it needs explicit approval.
Countries like Spain and Denmark spoke in defence of Conway’s ruling that the room was for tacit approval. Conway repeated that “there’s a clear majority that have decided to maintain the tacit acceptance procedure” and said he did not want to hear arguments repeated.
But after 30 more minutes of statements from the US, Saudi Arabia and allies, he changed his mind. In the interest of consensus and compromise, he said that the US proposal should be discussed by technical negotiators in a working group. “This will be my final ruling on the matter, he said.
The other side then complained. The Cook Islands negotiator suggested Conway had folded under the “pressure of events” and his decision risked “driving a VLCC [a type of big ship] through the processes and procedures that have stood the test of time”.
But they relented and Wednesday morning’s plenary meeting ended with negotiators being given a mandate to discuss tacit and explicit acceptance procedures in behind closed door sessions, which continued until nearly 11pm that night.
The full plenary met again on Thursday afternoon, but Conway proposed that discussions continue on Friday morning. The US called for time to consult and gathered with its Saudi Arabian and other allies. As negotiations continued behind closed doors, Conway urged governments to come back in the morning – the last day of talks – with solutions “so we will have a smooth discussion and a happy ending”.
Governments are also likely to vote tomorrow on the NZF itself. To pass, the deal need two-thirds of the MARPOL VI signatory countries which are present and voting to vote in favour of the deal – a threshold that was achieved easily in April.
The post US, Saudi-led alliance plunges green shipping deal into doubt appeared first on Climate Home News.
US, Saudi-led alliance plunges green shipping deal into doubt
Stientje van Veldhoven is Minister of Climate and Green Growth for the Netherlands.
When we co-hosted the first-ever conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels (TAFF) this April, the world was reeling from the volatility in oil and gas prices due to the Hormuz blockade. Fossil fuels moved to the centre of the debate as country leaders scrambled to secure supplies for their people.
We saw the very opposite in Santa Marta. Nearly 60 nations came together with 2,600-plus participants from civil society and community organisations, businesses and scientists to discuss concrete solutions on how governments can shift away from fossil fuels. Together, we defined the ‘Santa Marta process’ to serve as an extra engine for the broader process of the UNFCCC.
The Santa Marta process will see expert groups and committed countries develop national roadmaps, chart pathways to overcome financial constraints, and drive economic transformation. We made a multi-year commitment to take this process forward. With Tuvalu and Ireland taking over as co-chairs for 2027, transitioning away from fossil fuels is now moving from words to action.
European nations signal support for fossil fuel roadmap, says COP30 president
Work gets underway
At the opening of the Santa Marta conference, my co-chair Colombia’s then energy minister Irene Veléz Torres and I repeatedly stressed one thing: that the forum was not a space for negotiations, but a forum for countries and other partners to discuss practical steps to move away from fossil fuels.
Since then, we have seen three roadmaps already submitted: by France, Germany and our own. Pacific Island ministers also recently announced their intention to develop a regional roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. And I called on the European Commission to do the same for the European Union.
On top of this, numerous countries are already working on parts of the transition, such as phasing out coal or ending fossil fuel subsidies. More countries are expected to follow soon.
Workstreams were launched in early August, followed by sign-ups from countries willing to take a larger role and lead on organising different activities. Each workstream has an assigned lead organisation (or madrina). Each has its own working structure.
When the oil companies leave, who pays?
Across the world, communities facing the decline of fossil fuel industries are demanding a Just Transition that gives them a say in what comes next. Establishing a strong mechanism at COP31 could help them secure itCOP31 Bulletin Day 1: Agenda settled as COP urged to “supercharge solutions”
An agenda row is averted at the opening session, where the UN climate chief said strong results are needed from the talks to boost “real-world outcomes”
Workstream 1 focuses on supporting countries in developing and implementing flexible, country-owned national roadmaps. It operates as an open, collaborative hub that coordinates partner institutions to provide tailored technical, financial and policy support directly aligned with each country’s specific needs and existing frameworks. The consortium, which functions as a hub, currently consists of the NDC Partnership, the Powering Past Coal Alliance, the World Resources Institute and the newly established Science Panel on the Global Energy Transition.
Workstream 2 focuses on mobilising collective coalition power to tackle national and international financial constraints, debt-related barriers and macroeconomic dependencies that hinder the transition away from fossil fuels. Starting with a scoping phase, it will deliver transparent, actionable recommendations and reform solutions to support countries’ structural fiscal needs at global fora. Its madrinas are the International Institute for Sustainable Development and Transforma, a Latin American think-and-do-tank.
Workstream 3 focuses on driving economic transformation by mapping green partnership potential, decarbonising trade balances and building competitive, mutually beneficial clean markets. It aims to help countries, especially producers, diversify their economies, scale domestic value creation, and unlock collective trade opportunities. The madrina is the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development working together with the South Centre.
Incorporating Santa Marta into COP
What was abundantly clear in Santa Marta is that our coalition’s efforts are a strong support to, rather than a replacement for, the COP process. Over the past decade or so, the focus at COPs was on setting goals. Now we must focus on implementation. The COP31 presidencies have previously indicated their willingness to incorporate elements of the Santa Marta process into COP31 outcomes. We look forward to seeing how we can achieve this together.
The Brazilian COP30 Presidency delivered its global roadmap on the transition away from fossil fuels – a voluntary toolkit for countries that want to move ahead – just before the COP started in Antalya on Monday. During the coming two weeks, it’s critical that we see more concrete, actionable roadmaps for the fossil fuel phase-out. These documents can be crucial for a strong second Global Stocktake of national climate plans in two years’ time.
Brazil’s fossil fuel roadmap sketches out first global timetable
At COP31, a variety of TAFF-related events will be hosted, focusing on next steps within the Santa Marta workstreams. We welcome any leader and expert from around the world to take part as they work to develop their roadmaps, identify the fossil fuel subsidies they need to phase out, or establish green/clean markets at home.
Only by reducing fossil fuel demand and replacing it with clean electricity to run our economies can we all become more economically resilient and sharply cut the pace of climate change.
The post COP31 outcome needs to prioritise transition away from fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP31 outcome needs to prioritise transition away from fossil fuels
An older teaching about land acknowledgement
As I have come to understand the spirit and intention of land acknowledgement, I often return to fond memories of my grandmother and her words of wisdom. She taught that the health of the places we call home comes first, because the wellbeing of the people depends on it.
In her teaching, land acknowledgement began with the land. Long before it became a paragraph read at the start of a meeting, it was a way of recognizing a homeland: its waters, its species, its seasons, and the spirit that revealed whether the place was well.
Her teaching echoes a practice found across many Indigenous Nations. Haudenosaunee gatherings, for example, have long opened with the Ohén:ton Karihwatéhkwen, the Thanksgiving Address, often translated as “the words that come before all else.” The speaker greets and gives thanks to the people, the earth, the waters, the plants, the animals, the winds, the sun, the moon and the stars. Only after everything that sustains life has been acknowledged does the gathering turn to its own business.
That order changes what an acknowledgement is for. Its purpose was to share the story of a place with neighbours and to draw them into the work of tending it. People entered the story second, as the ones responsible for what had just been named.
Understood this way, an acknowledgement does more than open a meeting. It asks us to reconsider where we stand, and what we owe the ground beneath us.
Nations among nations
In her teaching, people are one nation among many. The salmon are a nation. So are the cedars, the bison, the medicine plants, and the pollinators. Each belongs to a place, carries its own responsibilities, and offers gifts no other nation can give.
This idea of kinship runs through many Indigenous philosophies. The phrase “all my relations,” heard in ceremonies and gatherings across Turtle Island, is a reminder that family extends beyond people to the animals, plants, waters and lands that make life possible. Some Indigenous languages carry the same understanding in their grammar, speaking of many plants, animals and natural forces as living beings rather than objects.
Sovereignty, understood through this relationship, is a kind of standing more than a form of control. Each nation belongs fully to its place and carries its share of that place’s life. No nation thrives alone, and none thrives by taking over the whole.
The land is also the source of instruction. Over generations, people watched how a river valley or a stretch of prairie kept itself well: who arrived when, who fed whom, and how much could be taken before the giving stopped. In my grandmother’s telling, those observations became instructions, and those instructions helped shape law and protocol. They guided when to harvest, where to camp, how to enter a neighbour’s territory, and what was owed in return.
Indigenous legal scholars today often describe this as law that comes from the land itself, learned by watching how living systems sustain one another. A plainer name for it is knowing how to live somewhere.
The host and the guest
One of the clearest teachings in this understanding of the world is the relationship between host and guest. My grandmother invited us to recognize that relationship in the lives of plants and animals.
A host prepares the place before anyone arrives. A beaver family dams a stream, and the pond becomes a home for fish, frogs, birds and plants. A fallen tree becomes a nurse log, feeding the next generation of seedlings as it returns to the soil.
A host offers first. A flowering plant sets out nectar. A berry bush ripens fruit. These provisions come in their own season, not whenever a visitor happens to want them.
A host also makes its presence known. Birdsong, scent and the marks left along a trail tell newcomers that a place is already inhabited. The visitor does not arrive in an empty world.
The guest has responsibilities too. A guest attends to the season and to what the place can offer. A guest does not assume that everything within reach is theirs to take. A guest leaves something that helps sustain the relationship.
A bee takes nectar and carries pollen. Read through this teaching, that exchange offers an image of visiting well: receiving a gift while helping the host continue its life.
Many Indigenous harvesting protocols carry the same ethic into daily practice: ask before taking, take only what is needed, offer thanks, and leave enough for others and for the plant or animal to recover.
None of this suggests that every relationship in nature is peaceful or generous. These are ways of seeing responsibilities that people can learn to carry.
Everyone is both
No being is only a host or only a guest.
A tree makes room for other life while depending on soil, water, sunlight, fungi, and relationships beyond itself. People, too, may welcome others into their homes while remaining dependent on the larger homeland that sustains them.
The distinction between host and guest is therefore about roles, not ranks. Everyone receives. Everyone has something to give.
The question is whether the exchange sustains the place.
A visitor who takes without restraint leaves less for those who come next. A host who neglects the place has less to offer. Both have responsibilities, and neither can fulfil them alone.
This is the heart of reciprocity, a principle found across Indigenous philosophies: relationships stay healthy when gifts move in both directions. The Haudenosaunee teaching of the seventh generation extends that exchange across time, asking that decisions made today leave the place well for those not yet born.
Mutual benefit begins here, with the recognition that different beings carry different gifts and obligations.
What people carry forward
My grandmother’s teaching connects these relationships to the ways people meet their neighbours.
The host prepares a place, offers food and rest, and explains where the visitor has arrived. The guest makes themselves known, explains why they have come, listens to the terms of the visit, and brings something in return. The gift may be material. It may also be labour, knowledge, news, or a commitment to help.
Nations around the Great Lakes carried this ethic into treaty. The Dish with One Spoon, an agreement among the Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe and allied Nations, describes shared hunting grounds as a single dish. Everyone eats from it with one spoon, takes only what they need, leaves enough for others, and keeps the dish clean. The Two Row Wampum, between the Haudenosaunee and European newcomers, shows two vessels travelling side by side on the same river, each keeping its own ways and neither steering the other.
In this understanding, acknowledgement is more than naming the people associated with a territory. It is learning enough about a homeland to behave responsibly within it.
Whose home is this? What sustains it? What laws and agreements guide our presence? What can we receive, and what must we return?
These questions make acknowledgement a relationship rather than a recital.
They also make it diplomatic. A guest who recognizes the host’s homeland recognizes that they have entered a place with its own relationships and responsibilities. A host who welcomes the guest makes room for an encounter governed by those relationships.
Neither arrives without standing. Neither arrives without obligations.
Beginning with place
I write from the shores of the Bay of Quinte. Here, the teaching asks me to begin with the water, the shoreline, and the life they sustain. Before I describe myself, I must attend to where I am.
That does not make people or history less important. It places them within the homeland that gives them meaning. The people, their laws, their agreements, and their responsibilities all belong to the place.
In a time of longer fire seasons, troubled waters, and uncertainty about what the next season will bring, this teaching asks something difficult and useful of us: pay attention before you speak.
An acknowledgement cannot tell the story of a place if the speaker has stopped noticing it.
The land came first. Beginning there again means learning to name what sustains us, and accepting that what sustains us also asks something of us.
By Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock
Photo by Andrik Langfield on Unsplash
The post The Land Came First appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.