Shipping’s Climate Deal Stalls – Asia‑Pacific Stakes Rising as the Clock Ticks

SINGAPORE, October 21, 2025 – Last week at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London, member states voted to adjourn the formal adoption of its sector‑wide “Net‑Zero Framework” (NZF) for international shipping by one year. 57 countries voted for the delay, 49 opposed and 21 abstained. This postponement is far more than a procedural hiccup: it has significant implications for global climate efforts — and for Asia‑Pacific maritime hubs in particular.

Why This Matters Globally

International shipping contributes about 3% of global CO₂ emissions, and without policy intervention its share is projected to rise. The NZF was designed to introduce a global fuel‑standard plus a carbon‑pricing mechanism for large ocean‑going vessels by as early as 2027. A delay means lost time in a sector with long‑lived assets. Every year of inaction locks in higher emissions, slower uptake of zero‑carbon fuels and weaker investment signals.

Asia‑Pacific & Singapore: Front‑line Consequences

As one of the top global shipping and bunkering hubs, Singapore stands at the centre of this challenge. Its trade volume in maritime transport far exceeds its GDP. Singapore co‑sponsored the NZF proposal, signalling early climate leadership. However, the delay creates uncertainty for shipyards, fuel suppliers, and regional competitiveness.

As one of the top global shipping and bunkering hubs, Singapore stands at the centre of this challenge. Its trade volume in maritime transport far exceeds its GDP; the shipping-logistics sector is a pillar of its economy. In April 2024, Singapore’s regulator, the MPA, set out its pathways for zero-/near-zero bunkering fuels. Singapore had co-sponsored the NZF proposal in 2025, signalling early climate leadership in shipping.

But with the delay, several issues arise:

Investment uncertainty: Singapore’s ship-repair yards, bunkering infrastructure and fuel-supply chains were preparing for enforcement of an NZF timeline. The postponement creates doubt over when (or if) these investments will pay off.

Competitive risk: If Singapore retains its ambition and moves forward (for example via local bunkering mandates or green-corridor initiatives), it risks being out-paced by less ambitious hubs that face fewer transitional burdens. Conversely, if Singapore slows, it loses first-mover advantage in clean-shipping services.

Asia’s regional split: The region is divided. Japan and South Korea backed a shipping emissions levy, while China and Indonesia opposed it. Singapore’s ability to act as a “bridge-builder” between developed and developing maritime states is now more important — but also more difficult.

2022: Maritime Singapore Decarbonisation Blueprint published, outlining seven focus areas. 2023: Alternative fuel pilots launched. Apr 2024: MPA gears up for net‑zero readiness. Jul 2025: Multi‑fuel bunkering trials and methanol standards in progress. 2030: Target for 1 million tonnes of low‑carbon methanol bunkers per year. 2050: Full net‑zero operations for Singapore’s maritime sector.

Regional knock-on effects

Smaller states in the Pacific are vulnerable. Pacific-island nations had argued strongly for a strong levy (US $150/tCO₂e) in the IMO negotiations. Their loss of momentum means they face greater climate risk with little compensatory funding stream from shipping.

Asia’s bunkering & fuel supply chains: Many vessels operating in and out of Asia were banking on regulatory clarity to pivot to zero-carbon fuels (green methanol, ammonia, e-fuels). Delayed signals mean slower scale-up, higher costs and potentially stranded assets.

Trade-hub vulnerability: Singapore and other Asian ports rely on stable regulatory regimes to attract investment. The postponement opens the door to regulatory fragmentation (regional regimes, unilateral measures) which could erode the predictability that shipping companies value.

Why the delay sets the clock back

Momentum lost. The NZF text had been approved in draft in April 2025. The adjournment means the timeline is now uncertain; originally entry into force was envisaged for March 2027.

Investment headwinds. The lack of a firm global framework reduces pressure on shipowners to commit to clean fuels and retrofits; given long lead-times in ship-building, each year matters.

Fragmentation risk rises. Without a global instrument, individual regions or ports may move ahead with their own regimes (e.g., the EU’s FuelEU Maritime, Singapore’s green-corridor pilots). But this division reduces efficiency, increases leakage risk and undercuts universality of shipping’s transition.

Asia-Pacific strategic risk. For Singapore, losing early-mover advantage threatens its maritime-ecosystem leadership. For small islands, fewer funds and less leverage.

Global climate-target implications. Shipping is a growing GHG emitter. Delays in this sector make the broader ambition of limiting warming to 1.5 °C harder — the quote from Pacific-region advocates is stark: “We cannot wait.”

What to watch next

Will Singapore step up unilaterally (or regionally) to fill the gap? For example, by introducing local bunkering incentives for low-carbon fuels, or by launching green-shipping corridors from its port.

How will Japan, Korea, China and Southeast Asian states respond? Will we see a patch-work of regional regimes or renewed push for a global deal in 2026?

Whether industry players in Asia shift to voluntary internal carbon pricing, fuel-switch commitments or early new-builds of low/zero-carbon vessels as a hedge.

Whether the Pacific Island coalition renews pressure on the IMO to return to a strong levy mechanism rather than a weakened compromise.

The postponement at the IMO is a serious early warning: the global maritime sector’s transition to net‑zero is off‑track. For Asia‑Pacific – and Singapore more than most – this delay threatens clarity, competitiveness and climate leadership. Shipping may contribute only ~3% of global CO₂ today, but its long‑lived assets mean every year of delay has out‑sized consequences for global decarbonisation.

Sources: official IMO notice of adjournment; shipping/energy trade coverage; major international outlets reporting the vote dynamics and pressure; and NGO/industry reactions on the policy consequences.