For decades, the International Maritime Organization has been the primary regulator for global shipping — an industry that, if it were a country, would rank among the world’s top emitters.
With great responsibility comes the need for decisive action.
Yet the latest so-called J9 proposal put forth at the IMO — a “compromise”, formally presented by Singapore during negotiations on policies that will determine whether shipping meets its climate commitments — falls woefully short of what is needed to drive an equitable and effective energy transition.
Singapore has long positioned itself as a bridge-builder in international maritime policy.
But true bridge-building does not mean offering the weakest, most politically palatable solution; it means forging a path that unites all stakeholders around the most effective and just outcome.
In this case, that means supporting a strong, universal levy on shipping emissions, not the half-measure on the table.
Singapore must do better as the IMO meets again for a two-part summit from 31 March to 1 April and 7 to 11 April, to finalise this critically needed policy.
The J9 proposal — framed as a middle ground — fails to meet the needs of the moment.
It leans heavily on emissions credit trading mechanisms rather than a direct and robust carbon price, prioritising short-term cost avoidance over real emissions reductions.
This approach undermines the foundation of an equitable transition by making it harder for vulnerable nations to access stable funding for climate adaptation and resilience.
The recent IMO discussions dedicated time to exploring the devastating impact of climate change on food security in vulnerable nations. But the J9 proposal ignores those findings.
A universal levy offers a direct path to mitigating these risks by generating stable revenues that can help offset rising transport costs, particularly for Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries.
This is not just about fairness; it’s about necessity.
Without strong economic incentives, zero-emission fuels will not become cost-competitive before 2044.
A high carbon levy — ranging from $150 to $300 per tonne — has been identified as the most effective way to bridge this gap, ensuring the rapid deployment of scalable clean fuel solutions while preventing the shipping sector from locking into transitional, polluting alternatives such as LNG and biofuels.
Singapore has positioned itself as the messenger of the J9 proposal, but if it wants to maintain credibility as a leader in global shipping governance, it must reflect the will of the IMO majority. The momentum behind a universal levy is undeniable.
More than 60 countries, as well as the industry itself through the International Chamber of Shipping, want a levy.
Pacific Island nations, many African states and Caribbean countries have stepped up to champion this cause — not out of convenience, but out of necessity. They have brought data, science and lived experience to the negotiating table, underscoring why a strong levy is not only viable but imperative.
If Singapore truly seeks to be a bridge-builder, it must recognise that compromise for the sake of compromise is not leadership.
Aligning with the IMO majority on a universal levy would reinforce Singapore’s reputation as a pragmatic and forward-thinking maritime hub, one that listens to and leads with the interests of the most vulnerable in mind.
The stakes could not be higher. A weak approach today will lock in higher long-term costs, not just for the industry but for the billions of people already facing the impacts of climate change.
Delay is not an option. The IMO has an opportunity to act decisively, and Singapore has a choice: stand as a true leader in the energy transition or risk being remembered as the messenger of a failed compromise.
Eldine Glees is a maritime policy adviser from Angola
(Copyright)
