The IMO – the International Maritime Organization – is the United Nations specialised agency with responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships. David Osborn, Director of the Marine Environment Division, spoke to Hannah Barnett.
How has the role of the IMO evolved as climate policy has become more urgent?
We are a member state-driven organisation, and the environmental agenda for the IMO is a long-standing one – the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter was adopted in 1972 and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was first adopted in 1973 – covering prevention of pollution from ships by oil, chemicals carried in bulk, packaged goods, sewage and garbage. The Marine Environment Division is there to support the member states in their processes to amend, modify, update and adopt new regulations to minimise the environmental footprint of shipping.
Once upon a time, shipping didn’t have a great reputation when it came to the environment, particularly with the major oil spills that had occurred around the world, and it’s come a long way in addressing those concerns. We have been working to mitigate the impact of shipping in terms of emissions since 1997, when IMO adopted a new Annex VI to the MARPOL treaty to prevent air pollution from ships – so almost 30 years now, but that work has really ramped up in the last decade or so.
Please outline the main goals of the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG). What has been achieved so far?
We’re negotiating amendments to the MARPOL Convention that would facilitate the shift from fossil fuels, and this has been challenging. The IMO member states have this multi-stage adoption process. Early in 2025, they reached an agreement on amendments to the convention. At first, they approved the amendments, but that doesn’t mean they’re in force. Then they have to adopt them.
The IMO member states decided to hold an extraordinary session of the committee in October 2025 to adopt the amendments. But unfortunately, when they all came back together, there was not enough agreement for the adoption to take place. One delegation moved a motion to adjourn the discussion and put it off for 12 months.
What was the most significant outcome from the September meeting?
The ISWG is a dialogue. It’s not a decision-making body; it’s a place where member states can come together and exchange ideas. The ISWG reports to the main Committee, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), which has the remit and power to adopt amendments to MARPOL.
It is worth noting that the package of amendments on the table has two fundamental elements. One is what we call the technical measure, which is effectively just setting the targets.
The second is what we call the economic element. If a ship meets its target, it can develop surplus credits. If a ship is not meeting the target, it can either buy some of those credits or pay a penalty – to what we were calling the net zero fund. The intent is that either way there’s an economic incentive for ships to transition to alternative fuels.
At the moment, member states seem to be broadly in two camps. One is the camp that says shipping won’t transition to alternative fuels without a demand signal providing some encouragement, supporting the economic incentive. Then there are those focussed on the supply side, pointing out they cannot transition faster than the availability of fuels. Meaning we’ve got to set targets based on the availability, affordability and scalability of alternative fuels. But again, the counter argument is the fuel won’t be there unless we create an incentive for the market to develop this fuel. We have this chicken and egg situation.
Which alternative fuels appear best positioned to benefit from the proposed net zero framework?
The member states have been very specific in saying the transition needs to be fuel and technology agnostic. The regulations aren’t specifying which fuel should become the replacement. And in fact, the most likely scenario is that there won’t be just one. There’s likely to be a broader suite of fuels available, and shipping companies will need to factor that in.
Maybe in 20 or 30 years, some cream will rise to the top. But at the moment, no one wants to put all their eggs in one basket. Recent events in the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea and the Black Sea have all highlighted the risk of being linked to one fuel type.
Is the current framework ambitious enough to achieve the member states’ net-zero ambitions by around 2050?
In 2023, Member States adopted the IMO Greenhouse Gas Strategy, setting the goal to reach net zero by 2050. That is still the ambition. But linked to that, there’s a parallel agenda on safety. There’s a whole piece of work being done under the Maritime Safety Committee and we just held a forum in Singapore looking at spills from alternative fuels.
We need to make sure that there is a whole new generation of seafarers trained in the use of alternative fuels, whether it’s the engineering crew on board the ship, or the bunkering at the port, or port state control. That’s not something that is done overnight. This will be a period of transition.
In what ways will technology help to drive decarbonisation across the shipping industry?
In parallel with the decarbonisation agenda among the IMO member states is digitalisation. One of the ways that we improve energy efficiency is through better route planning for vessels and optimising logistics.
There are also several ship engine companies developing dual-fuel engines. For a long time, ships have been carrying LNG and ammonia as cargo. But using it as a bunker fuel is a different scenario. So, companies are looking at how to develop the engineering solutions on board the ships, and the same applies with ports.
An interesting area in port infrastructure is electrification. We’re seeing increasingly more ports trying to transition. Some short sea operators are looking at batteries for short-journey ferries and within domestic waters. That means investing in ports and utility systems to supply the energy – ideally from renewable sources.
Use of energy efficient technologies is another example. There’s been some really innovative designs and ideas coming out, and we are seeing increasing efficiency with the introduction of these technologies. There is wind assisted propulsion for example – we are seeing rotor sails that could reduce fuel consumption by 10 or 20% – a big saving.
What aspect of your role excites you the most?
Shipping has always been a driver in global affairs. We are now at a crossroads. The sector has a golden opportunity to be avant-garde when it comes to achieving decarbonisation.
IMO has already adopted sector-wide energy efficiency regulations for ships, for design of new build ships (EEDI) and introducing an operational energy-efficiency rating system for ships (EEXI and CII). The next set of regulations – those currently under discussion – could have a flow-on effect for other transport sectors.
I was a naval officer, so I’m connected with ships. But my real love is the environment, and I’ve spent most of my career focusing on protecting the marine environment from pollution, climate change, overfishing, habitat destruction, etc. Shipping can play such an important role in that sector. That’s what makes me so passionate.