UCL analysis says only the current agreed Net-Zero Framework structure provides a credible investment signal for scalable alternative marine fuels. Image Credit: Ship & Bunker

A new analysis by the London-based UCL Shipping and Oceans Research Group for the Getting to Zero Coalition warns that weakening the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework (NZF) could delay large-scale availability of zero-emission marine fuels into the 2040s.

Only the NZF agreed in principle in April 2025, if adopted in its current form, offers a bankable demand signal and revenue mechanism strong enough to underpin early investment in scalable zero-emission fuels, UCL stressed in a report released on Thursday.

The report points to fuels such as e-hydrogen, e-ammonia and e-methane as among the scalable options needed for long-term decarbonisation.

Alternative NZF scenarios, which include removing the compliance market, non-compliance penalties, and net-zero fund, would strip out the economic architecture designed to de-risk production and bunkering infrastructure.

Without those mechanisms, investment decisions are likely to stall, pushing commercial alternative marine fuel scaling further into the future.

The study also warns that weakening or removing the fund would reduce the framework’s ability to support a just and equitable transition, particularly for lower-income countries.

According to the analysis, NZF compromise may not broaden political consensus but instead increase transition risk, delay fuel availability and heighten the likelihood of fragmented regional regulation.

The NZF, agreed in principle in April, failed to secure a final vote in October 2025 after opposition from a US-Saudi-led bloc, with delegates instead postponing a decision by one year.

It remains to be seen whether member states will adopt the framework in its current form later this year or move forward with a diluted version.

"The Net Zero Framework was a fragile compromise in April last year," Prof. Tristan Smith, Professor of Energy and Transport at UCL Shipping and Oceans Research Group, said.

"It should not be surprising that analysis finds that adjustments to make it acceptable to some governments can be expected to lose support from other governments."