Why does this matter?  Shipping is a major emitter of greenhouse gases, responsible for 3% of global emissions. Yet, the industry is not covered by the Paris Agreement, posing a significant regulatory gap. In 2023, IMO member states agreed to a goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, with interim targets of reducing emissions by 30% by 2030 and 80% by 2040 compared with a 2008 baseline.

However, the initial agreement did not specify how net zero would be achieved and negotiations on concrete measures have been slow-moving. The latest framework represents a breakthrough with the newly agreed policies slated to shape the trajectory of global shipping going forward.

The new emissions intensity targets have been reduced to 4% in 2028, which will rise to 30% in 2035. And an upper target of17% by 2028 increased  to 43% in 2035. To meet these targets ships are expected to switch to less polluting fuels.

Ships unable to sufficiently reduce their emissions will pay a penalty. If failing to meet the lower targets, ships can purchase “remedial units”  at $380 per unit, which funds the newly established “net-zero fund”. Or, in a carbon credit-style exchange, ships could purchase surplus units from others that have excelled in reducing carbon intensity.

The second tier of penalty applies to ships that meet the lower targets but fail to reach the more stringent upper aims. These ship owners would pay $100 per unit into the net-zero fund. Overall, these agreed costs and targets fall roughly in the middle of targets proposed by member countries.

Two companies in the Ocean 14 Capital portfolio are uniquely positioned to support the IMO’s shift towards cleaner fuels and carbon pricing,  Sofar Ocean, for example, provides crucial ocean data that optimises vessel performance. The company’s high-accuracy weather forecasts and performance models help ships reduce fuel consumption and emissions by providing optimised routing.

Given the IMO’s new rules, Sofar Ocean’s solutions can support the maritime industry’s efforts to meet emission reduction targets, improving fuel efficiency and lowering overall emissions.

Meanwhile, Goodcarbon enables businesses to build long-term carbon credit portfolios through nature-based assets. Its platform supports projects like reforestation and land conservation, which contribute to offsetting carbon emissions. Though they have focused on land-based projects, Goodcarbon is well positioned to become a key player for the maritime industry.

With the IMO’s focus on carbon pricing, Goodcarbon’s solutions offer a vital tool for companies in the shipping industry to meet emissions targets while supporting the transition to a net-zero future.

Although the deal at the IMO represents a significant shift in global maritime regulations, the framework is not without controversy. Some emerging economies and oil-producing nations, such as Saudi Arabia, opposed the carbon pricing measures, arguing they would place a financial burden on global trade and raise commodity prices.

The US also withdrew partway through the negotiations, calling the carbon pricing system “blatantly unfair.” Despite the opposition, the deal was passed through a majority vote, with the framework aiming to raise funds for climate action, including supporting the adoption of low-carbon fuels.

Some critique has been cited by the UCL and the NGO coalition Transport and Environment. which found that the framework would be insufficient to meet the new targets, given that 90% of emissions will escape penalties under the IMO’s rules. The UCL research group sees this agreement as “weak” and a watering down of previous targets from the IMO.

The IMO’s historic agreement takes a crucial step toward reducing shipping emissions, setting clear targets and penalties for non-compliance. Yet, many critics argue that the deal lacks the urgency and ambition required to align with global climate goals, especially as it faces resistance from key stakeholders. Success of the agreement will depend on stronger actions and broader collaboration in the coming years.

Why does this matter? Plastic pollution is one of the gravest threats to marine environments, aquatic biodiversity, and the communities and industries that rely on the planet’s oceans. Despite this, plastic production, consumption, and pollution continue to rise, with the world consuming four times more plastic than it did in the 1990s.

The IMO’s appeal to the fishery and shipping sectors is crucial as these industries contribute significantly to marine pollution. For example, 640,000 tonnes of lost or discarded fishing gear – known as “ghost gear” – enter the ocean annually, accounting for around 10% of global marine plastic pollution.

Shipping, on the other hand, is responsible for large amounts of microplastic pollution, often via spills of plastic pellets.

Alongside the IMO’s proposed anti-plastic pollution alliance, several national governments have taken decisive action.

Barbados, a state that is disproportionately impacted by plastic pollution, launched a new National Action Plan in July aimed at reducing plastic pollution by 73% over the next decade.

Action was taken after the UN-endorsed Plastic Drawdown tool revealed that 500 tonnes of plastic had seeped into the Barbadian environment in one year, heavily polluting the island’s seas.

Five key policies form the basis of the National Action Plan. Among these, a ban on single-use plastic bags, a relaunch of the country’s plastic bottle return scheme, and improvements in the separation of recyclables.

Fiji also banned single-use plastic in 2021 as it fights its own battle against marine plastic pollution, of which just 28% originated from the Pacific Island.

Despite the emergence of meaningful action on a regional and industrial level, international plastic treaty progress has been frustratingly slow. In March 2022 at the UN Environment Assembly, 175 nations committed to formulating a legally binding treaty aimed at tackling the full life cycle of plastics.

The aim was to have a legally binding agreement focused on curbing plastic pollution agreed upon by 2024 or 2025. A draft has since been drawn up, but significant differences over the treaty’s scope remain.

Fossil fuel-producing nations argue that recycling and clean-up are the solution. However, the 127 members of the “High Ambition Coalition” propose more stringent production curbs and restrictions on their use in certain products.

While the global community struggles to mount a coordinated attack on marine plastic pollution, innovative companies, such as Novelplast, are developing solutions. Instead of a waste product, the company treats used plastic as a valuable resource by upcycling used PET and polyester feedstocks into recycled products.

With the plastic production industry expected to double in capacity by 2040, re-evaluating society’s perception of plastic from a single to multi-use material is key to reducing pollution levels.

Bureo is another firm championing a similar mindset by converting abandoned fishing nets into high-quality fabrics. The company has established collection initiatives in six countries, successfully recycling over 4.5 million kg of nets since 2013.

As plastic continues to pollute the planet’s oceans, the tireless work of innovative companies, industry groups, and regional governments hold the key to ensuring meaningful reductions to marine plastic pollution. The world’s oceans cannot wait for world leaders to reach an agreement.