The IMO Carbon Vote Slips to 4 December: Before You Pay That Emissions Surcharge, Check Which Rule It Comes From
The last week of October, plenty of people in this trade were waiting on one announcement: the IMO's Net-Zero Framework was due back for a vote this month. It did not come. On the IMO's own schedule, the resumed second extraordinary session, adjourned a year ago, now sits on 4 December 2026, and MEPC 85, running from 30 November to 3 December, must confirm that agenda first. Before that, a second intersessional working group meets from 23 to 27 November on the guidelines.
That date shift is not gossip. It is an invoice problem. Global carbon pricing for shipping remains a draft, not law. With no rule in force, any 2026 freight invoice carrying an IMO carbon fee, a global levy or a carbon surcharge lacks a basis. Emissions line items are now routine in quotes, but they come from two European regulations.
Why it keeps slipping. The October 2025 session adjourned for a year by 57 votes to 49. MEPC 84 in April 2026 did not adopt either; it set up an intersessional working group and allowed members to amend the approved draft. The 22nd working group closed on 4 September without agreement, pushing the guidelines into November. Amendments to a MARPOL annex need two-thirds of the Parties present and voting, and that threshold has decided every round so far.
The draft deserves study in advance, because adoption would set the charging mechanism. It covers ships above 5,000 gross tonnage, about 85% of international shipping's CO2. The metric is greenhouse gas fuel intensity in grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule, well-to-wake, against a 2008 baseline: 30% lower by 2035, 65% by 2040. Ships above the trajectory pay a compliance charge, low and zero-carbon fuels earn a reward, and the revenue is redistributed. Adoption on 4 December leaves about sixteen months to entry into force, so first enforcement lands around 2028.
What collects money today is two EU regimes, and they stack. The EU ETS reaches its final step in 2026: 40% of 2024 emissions surrendered, 70% of 2025, 100% from 2026, with methane and nitrous oxide added in CO2 equivalent. Coverage is unchanged: 100% on intra-EU and EEA voyages and at berth, 50% into or out of the bloc. FuelEU Maritime governs well-to-wake fuel intensity, baseline 91.16 grams per megajoule, tightening 2% in 2025, 6% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. A ship can owe on both: enough allowances under the ETS, still an intensity deficit under FuelEU.
Maersk's published surcharge, which bundles both regimes, is a useful yardstick. Far East to North Europe, 40-foot dry, across the four quarters of 2026: EUR 144, 154, 133 and 148, the last effective from 1 October. Far East to the Mediterranean: 112, 119, 100 and 114. North Europe to the Far East: 97, 104, 88 and 99. Intra-Mediterranean runs 48 to 52, intra-North Europe 25 to 28. Allowances traded around EUR 75 to 80 per tonne. CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd pre-announced increases of roughly 43% and 45% for January 2026, entirely on the step from 70% to 100%.
In proportion: Drewry's index on 24 September put Shanghai to Rotterdam at USD 3,485 per 40-foot box, so EUR 148 is about 4.9%. When spot rates fall the carbon line holds still and its share rises, which is why a falling freight rate no longer implies a falling landed cost. Equally, a carbon charge quoted as a percentage of freight, rather than an amount per box, cannot be verified.
Four questions belong on the quote sheet. Is the line EU ETS only, or does it bundle FuelEU? Bundling is legal, but you should know which regulation you fund. Which allowance period is the reference, and how often is it reset? How is the voyage cost allocated, per TEU, per tonne or blended? And has the into-or-out-of-EU leg been charged at 100% when the rule says 50%?
Three contract points can be added now. Accept charges only for regulations in force and verifiable, named by instrument and calculation basis, with nothing prepaid for an IMO regime that may not begin until 2028. Add a review trigger, say a 15% move in the quarterly average allowance price against the contract benchmark, in place of a unilateral notice. And fix the burden of proof: an adjustment without the price source and the allocation method does not stand.
Further out, if 4 December does adopt, 2028 is the first compliance year and low-carbon capacity will be thin. DNV counts 298 alternative-fuel newbuild orders in 2023, 515 in 2024 and 275 in 2025, a 47% fall. The two years of regulatory limbo were exactly the two years owners least wanted to order, so greener slots will not multiply by 2028. Long-term contracts can reasonably ask for priority on low-carbon tonnage; paying a premium today for something three years out is a different decision.
Carbon cost is also lane-specific. Regulation collects today on Europe and on the UK, which runs its own ETS with a different scope, so UK-touching voyages need separate checking. US, Southeast Asia and Africa lanes carry no equivalent charge, and transplanting European per-box figures inflates a quote by tens of dollars. When a competitor's lower carbon fee is waved at you, ask which regulation and which leg it covers.
Until 4 December, two things are certain. Global carbon pricing has not landed, and no 2026 invoice should carry a cent of it. The two EU regimes are in force, coverage from 2026 is 100%, and 2026 emissions fall due for surrender on 30 September 2027. Wait for the vote before writing 2028 costs into long-term contracts. Until then, auditing this quarter's and next quarter's carbon charges line by line is worth more than forecasting the outcome.
