Lloyd's List is part of Maritime Intelligence

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address c/o Hackwood Secretaries Limited, One Silk Street, London EC2Y 8HQ, United Kingdom. Lloyd’s List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Lloyd’s is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd’s.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call UK support at +44 (0)20 3377 3996 / APAC support at +65 6508 2430

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

US tries to hobble NZF with late bid to change acceptance rules

  • Change from ‘tacit’ to ‘explicit’ acceptance would make NZF easier to block
  • Supporters argue tacit acceptance has been used for over 50 years
  • Opponents stress divisions over carbon price regulation

The US, Saudi Arabia and other opponents of the Net-Zero Framework are pushing the MEPC to change its rules to make it harder for the NZF to enter into force if states vote to adopt it

COUNTRIES trying to stop the IMO’s global carbon price have pushed for a last-minute change to procedural rules to make it harder to adopt.

The US asked the Marine Environment Protection Committee to switch from “tacit acceptance” to “explicit acceptance” ahead of a final vote on the Net-Zero Framework, expected for Friday.

Tacit acceptance — the system the IMO has used since 1973 — means a Marpol amendment enters into force 10 months after it is formally adopted by the MEPC, unless one third of parties to Marpol, or countries representing 50% of the world’s gross tonnage, object.

Changing to explicit acceptance would mean two thirds of contracting governments would need to write to the IMO to confirm their acceptance after the adoption on Friday.

The IMO website, explaining the difference, notes: “This process is very time-consuming and most of the amendments adopted this way never entered into force.”

The US and Saudi Arabia, lobbying hard to erode the NZF’s majority, argued that the slower process was appropriate because of the degree of division on display at IMO this week, and their oft-repeated concerns about the NZF’s potential costs to trade.

The US called explicit acceptance a “simple way to forestall those concerns” that would not change the IMO’s work timelines. It characterised tacit acceptance as a tactic by NZF supporters to “stifle debate on this unprecedented proposal”.

A majority of countries on the plenary floor in London on Wednesday urged the MEPC to keep tacit acceptance, led by Denmark, Canada, Australia, EU states and Kenya.

“Explicit acceptance sometimes simply does not work,” Brazil said. India called the current regime crucial.

NZF supporters said the framework had been designed with tacit acceptance in mind and that no one had questioned it until Wednesday.

They warned that changing the way Marpol amendments enter force could hamper future rule-making, adding that the tacit acceptance system has been in place for more than 50 years.

The World Shipping Council said: “Adoption through explicit ratification of the current amendments does invite delay and prolonged uncertainty that might be measured in years or decades.”

The WSC said such uncertainty stopped shipping companies from making green investments necessary to achieve the IMO’s 2023 greenhouse gas strategy.

China voted in favour of the NZF on Tuesday but appeared to favour explicit acceptance on Wednesday.

MEPC chair Harry Conway, of Liberia, said the majority favoured keeping the current rules. He referred the matter to a drafting committee for further work.

Sources said the NZF could be in trouble if the MEPC takes the acceptance issue to a vote. This would probably happen on Friday morning at the same time as the broader vote on whether to adopt the NZF.

 

 

 

Related Content

Topics

  • Related Companies
  • UsernamePublicRestriction

    Register

    LL1155120

    Ask The Analyst

    Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
    Ask The Analyst

    Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

    All fields are required.

    Please make sure all fields are completed.

    Please make sure you have filled out all fields

    Please make sure you have filled out all fields

    Please enter a valid e-mail address

    Please enter a valid Phone Number

    Ask your question to our analysts

    Cancel