You began your four-year term as Secretary-General of the IMO in January 2024. What reforms are you prioritizing during your tenure?
I’ve outlined four specific objectives. The first was to enhance the way we support Member States during negotiations and agreements at IMO. I committed to not shying away from difficult conversations negatively affecting shipping, and to constantly improve our regulatory process by learning from experiences and adapting to the evolving geopolitical and technological landscape. The second priority is enhancing the implementation of IMO instruments to ensure safe, secure shipping on clean oceans. We're transforming how we analyze Member State needs, introducing key performance indicators and verification mechanisms.
The third pillar is improving transparency and visibility, not just within the shipping sector, but to the wider world—engaging global media and opening up our Organization. The fourth is focusing on people, from providing training and tools for our staff, to protecting seafarers' health and well-being, and attracting new generations into the sector.
Shipping is responsible for nearly 3% of global emissions, yet it often attracts less public scrutiny than other transportation sectors like aviation. Why do you think that is?
Since 2011, we've had the Energy Efficiency Design Index, which initially applied to new ships and now includes existing ships. Shipping has been under scrutiny; if it were treated as a country, it would rank around eighth in emissions. What I don’t see is recognition highlighting the achievements we’ve made, unlike some other sectors.
Emissions have plateaued even though shipping has grown. Compared to the 2008 baseline, emissions intensity reduced by 31%. We’re now moving toward implementing new global measures, including a mandatory pricing mechanism and a marine fuel standard. While shipping may contribute 3% of emissions, over 80% of global goods are transported by ships, making it one of the most efficient and sustainable modes of transport. Still, we take the reduction of emissions seriously, with a clear strategy aiming for full decarbonisation by or around 2050.
This October, the IMO is set to adopt the first mandatory global carbon pricing mechanism for shipping. In practice, what kind of impact is it projected to have on the industry’s operations and decarbonisation efforts?
This will be the first global mandatory—not voluntary—carbon pricing mechanism for the sector. A baseline has been set, and contributions will relate to emissions from fuel use. Companies using alternative or zero-emission fuels will be rewarded and supported. Those in the mid-range can balance using renewable credits and surplus units, which can be distributed across a company’s fleet to offset emissions. It’s something tangible that was already agreed upon in 2023. Completing this process will demonstrate IMO’s seriousness and commitment to a sustainable future and reinforce the green credentials of global shipping.
We expect implementation to begin in calendar year 2028 and estimate it will generate around $10 billion annually. This funding will support the transition, particularly for developing countries, especially small islands, developing States and least developed countries, and help early movers, port infrastructure, and bunkering systems. It will also fund technical cooperation, capacity building, R&D, and training for seafarers, all starting with developing states and least developed countries. The mechanism includes both a fuel standard and a pricing system to collect funding and meet our 2030 strategy goals. The interim goals include reducing GHG emissions by 20%, aiming for 30%, and achieving 5% uptake of alternative and zero-emission fuels, aiming for 10%.
While the deal marks a turning point for shipping, approval wasn’t unanimous, with some major states, including the U.S., choosing not to back it. Why didn’t the agreement gain broader support?
When we adopted the IMO GHG strategy in 2023, the next step was to answer calls for mechanisms like a fuel standard and pricing structure to help the industry plan long-term investments. We’ve already seen that 50% of vessel orders last year were for alternative fuels or ready vessels, signaling the shift.
But the concerns are real—some fear impacts on fuel costs, food security, and trade, especially for oil-dependent or developing economies.
Votes are part of IMO’s regulatory process; this wasn’t the first time. Even the 2011 Energy Efficiency Design Index went to a vote. We continue talking with all Member States and addressing their concerns. A vote doesn’t mean division; we’re still working as one Organization. I'm very confident it will pass. The conversations haven’t stopped between sessions; we meet twice a year formally, but work continues in between. We’ve done this before, and I expect we’ll finalize this as planned.
With green fuels gaining momentum, the industry is entering a new phase of experimentation and investment. How is the IMO approaching this evolving fuel landscape?
IMO has made the decision to stay fuel- and technology-agnostic. Different countries have different capabilities and resources. Fuels like ammonia, methanol, and hydrogen are emerging as leaders. Ammonia is particularly prominent. We've set up a life cycle assessment framework, analyzing fuels using a well-to-wake approach to evaluate emissions and green credentials. Infrastructure is key, and we saw this already with LNG. Governments need to invest in the necessary infrastructure, which the pricing mechanism will support.
On the technology side, there's growth in wind-assisted propulsion, port electrification, and even nuclear power, which we're exploring with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Safety is also crucial—we're updating codes for safe transport and use of new fuels and developing training courses, starting with methanol and ethanol this year, ammonia next year, and then hydrogen. Liability is another issue. Current liability conventions cover conventional fuels. Next year, we’ll begin scoping whether we need new conventions or changes to existing ones for these new fuels.
Beyond sustainability, shipping faces growing challenges tied to human security and geopolitical risk. What issues are most pressing for you right now?
The top concern for me is seafarers. They’ve been directly affected by geopolitics—lives have been lost in conflict zones like the Red Sea and Black Sea. If we want to attract younger generations, we must do more to protect the people who make shipping possible.
Next would be the dark or shadow fleets, which I categorize as substandard shipping. Ships that don’t meet IMO conventions standards shouldn’t be operating—they’re dangerous for the environment and the crew. IMO doesn’t deal with sanctions, except those passed by the UN Security Council. But we’re conducting a regulatory scoping exercise through the Legal Committee to see how we can strengthen our framework to address substandard ships. We’re enhancing port state control and proposing to centralize inspection data to identify non-compliant ships and provide assistance to Member States.
