TOKYO – Japan is a powerful maritime nation and has been a key player in U.N. shipping climate negotiations.
Japan’s shipyards have built a reputation for high quality, fuel efficient, and energy-saving vessels. As such, this strategic sector naturally benefits from tougher climate rules.
A key turning point on shipping climate action was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which handed the U.N. International Maritime Organization the responsibility to reduce shipping emissions, currently reaching around 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas annually.
Pressure has been growing on the IMO to take action since then, especially from countries threatened by dangerous climate change in the Pacific. But it took until last year for countries to agree on a robust policy measure that could answer the call.
In April 2025, the IMO made history by voting to approve the Net-Zero Framework (NZF), backed by Japan as well as 80 percent of countries present and voting.
But when the IMO was expected to adopt the framework just a few months later, in October 2025, the meeting saw unprecedented opposition from a loud minority of oil-producing states led by the United States. In a vote proposed by Saudi Arabia to delay discussions on the NZF adoption by 12 months, Japan changed direction and abstained. The Saudi proposal carried a majority and the process was thrown into confusion.
In the absence of IMO action, regional and national policies have been emerging. But this “regulatory patchwork” is ill-suited to create a stable, smooth business environment that a crucial global sector like shipping needs.
Japan has tried to build bridges at the IMO by proposing an alternative solution but making huge concessions to NZF opponents. Japan’s concept removes mandatory carbon pricing, a key item of consensus that was unanimously agreed as necessary to decarbonize shipping under the IMO’s 2023 climate strategy.
As expected, Japan’s proposal failed to gain traction at subsequent negotiations in April this year.
Steadfast proponents for the NZF, including Brazil, Britain, the European Union and the Marshall Islands, remained committed to adoption in April, and new voices from lower income countries, including from Africa, made it clear that the inclusion of carbon pricing was essential. The meeting concluded to move forward with the NZF as the basis, and to further consider how best to address issues, rejecting the way forward Japan had proposed.
Japan’s credibility at the IMO is now at risk and its next move is crucial.
The country can either return to its previous endorsement of the NZF and help the current majority to regain the critical mass it secured just over 12 months ago and move forward with adoption. Or it can continue its recent path of proposing options that cannot reach a majority because they lack greenhouse gas pricing and a fund for supporting developing countries, and that then risk dragging the IMO into obscurity and irrelevance.
Ahead of the committee meetings in late November to December at which this issue will be discussed, the IMO will hold a working group meeting in London from Sept. 1 to 4.
What is at stake is not just a predictable and cost-effective transition in shipping but also Japan industry’s competitive edge and diplomatic reputation.
Tristan Smith is professor of energy and transport at University College London, who has been in the post since October 2024.
