The United States has laid out a range of alternatives it could accept in place of an IMO-administered fund, even as it reaffirmed firm opposition to the fund concept itself, according to Ship & Bunker.
The comments came during an intervention at the 22nd session of the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 22), held this week in London, Ship & Bunker reports, citing sources present at the IMO gathering. The working group is meeting ahead of a resumed session where member states are expected to revisit adoption of the Net-Zero Framework (NZF), a measure approved at MEPC 83 in April 2025 but left unadopted after an extraordinary session adjourned last October.
Redline Restated, But Room for Compromise
According to Ship & Bunker, the US delegation reiterated what it called its “principled, firm, and, yes, redline opposition to any IMO-administered fund,” arguing that operating such a fund and allocating billions of dollars annually for decades would represent a major departure from the IMO’s traditional mission. The delegation also objected to the fund’s proposed financing structure, which it said would ultimately draw on consumers worldwide through what amounts to a carbon tax under the NZF.
However, Ship & Bunker reports that the US framed its objection around the argument that the IMO’s 2023 GHG strategy never explicitly called for a fund, describing it instead as one possible means—rather than an end goal—of achieving a just and equitable transition. The delegation said Brazil and Denmark had made similar points.
Alternatives on the Table
On that basis, according to Ship & Bunker, the US listed several approaches it remains open to exploring, including public-private partnerships referencing proposals from Japan, voluntary industry or government support for merit-based projects, and direct contributions to existing IMO programmes—provided none require amendments to MARPOL Annex VI.
The delegation also welcomed Brazil’s proposal for a “facility” that would operate differently from a fund, describing it as potentially temporary and more streamlined, focused on efficient collection and deployment of revenues through accredited implementing institutions, Ship & Bunker reports. A “roster of funds” concept previously proposed by Canada was also cited as worth exploring.
The US said it was not endorsing any specific idea at this stage but committed to bringing the proposals back to Washington and continuing discussions during the intersessional period, according to Ship & Bunker. The delegation also argued that standing up a fund of the scale envisioned under the NZF would take “years and years, even in a best-case scenario,” compared with existing investment and technical cooperation channels already in place.
On incentives for green fuels, Ship & Bunker reports that the US said a dedicated reward mechanism would be unnecessary if a more gradual Global Fuel Intensity (GFI) reduction trajectory were adopted, with surplus credit sales serving as the primary incentive under a voluntary market-based approach—a position that contrasts with calls from ICS and IBIA for larger rewards funded through the very mechanism the US opposes.
Does This Matter to You?
For those monitoring the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework negotiations, this intervention offers one of the clearest signals yet of what compromise might look like from Washington’s side. Vessel operators, fuel suppliers, and bunker traders tracking the potential shape of future GHG compliance costs may find the shift from an outright fund toward alternative mechanisms relevant to long-term planning around carbon pricing and fuel incentive structures.
The source material does not detail how other IMO member states have responded to these specific proposals, nor does it clarify a timeline for resolution. The direct financial or operational impact on bunkering operations remains unclear at this stage, pending further intersessional discussions.
Gulf Bunkering does not provide operational or security guidance. This article is for informational purposes only. Operators should consult flag state authorities, P&I clubs, and relevant advisories for decisions relating to transit planning.
Sources: Ship & Bunker
