Warning on Australia’s maritime decarbonisation push

AUSTRALIA’S new Maritime Emissions Reduction National Action Plan (MERNAP) has positioned the country as an early mover on maritime decarbonisation, but industry experts say the absence of a binding global framework from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is creating uncertainty for ports, exporters and fuel producers.

The Global Maritime Forum (GMF) told Daily Cargo News that Australia’s domestic momentum is welcome, but without internationally agreed rules, the National Action Plan risks advancing faster than the regulatory environment it ultimately depends on.

Australia’s economy is deeply exposed to international shipping, with around 99% of trade by volume and 87% by value carried by sea. Shipping associated with Australia’s international trade accounts for roughly 8% of the nation’s carbon footprint. GMF said this makes global alignment essential for meaningful emissions reduction.

GMF said Australia’s decision to progress MERNAP ahead of the IMO’s final Net Zero Framework offers several advantages. It maintains policy momentum while negotiations continue, provides confidence for ports and fuel producers considering long-term investments, and supports first-mover projects such as low-emission fuels, green shipping corridors and port infrastructure upgrades.

The plan also positions Australia to capture economic opportunities linked to clean fuel production and export — a priority area identified in MERNAP — and helps maintain the competitiveness of Australian exports as major trading partners increasingly focus on lower-emission supply chains.

GMF emphasised that maritime decarbonisation is not only a climate issue but also an economic, industrial and strategic opportunity for Australia.

Policy momentum meets regulatory uncertainty

However, advancing domestic policy ahead of the IMO carries risks. GMF noted the final global framework may differ from Australian assumptions on fuels, emissions accounting or compliance mechanisms. Infrastructure or incentives built around pathways later amended could impose additional costs on industry.

A fragmented regulatory landscape also increases complexity for ship operators working across multiple jurisdictions, particularly those whose fleets primarily operate internationally.

GMF said Australia can progress many enabling actions — including workforce development, port readiness, fuel supply chain planning and pilot projects such as the Western Australia–East Asia iron ore green shipping corridor — but large-scale investment decisions will remain difficult until global rules are settled.

Without a binding IMO framework, future fuel demand remains uncertain, investors have less confidence to commit capital, fuel suppliers lack clarity on which fuels will scale, and shipowners may delay vessel investment decisions.

GMF identified several gaps between Australia’s domestic policy and emerging global standards. These include a stronger domestic focus relative to international shipping, limited certainty around future marine fuel demand, and the need for better alignment between maritime policy, fuel production and export strategies.

There is also scope for Australia to place greater emphasis on the economic, industrial and energy security benefits of maritime decarbonisation, alongside emissions reduction outcomes.

GMF said Australia’s early action strengthens its credibility at the IMO, but also raises expectations that ambition will translate into delivery through port readiness, skills development, fuel production capability and demonstration projects.

“Australia's government and industry have recognised the strategic advantages of moving early on maritime decarbonisation. The country's leadership at the IMO suggests that it also knows that the best insurance for first mover investments is an ambitious global framework that enters into force as soon as possible,” says Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum

Ports and industry face several practical challenges when national policy advances faster than global regulation. These include uncertainty around fuel pathways and workforce planning, risk of stranded assets, difficulty coordinating investment timing across supply chains, and challenges securing finance while future demand and regulatory requirements remain unclear.

GMF said Australia’s plan is unlikely to require major revision once the IMO framework is agreed, but refinement is expected in areas such as fuel priorities, compliance mechanisms, timelines and investment focus. The overall direction of MERNAP — centred on enabling measures — is expected to remain intact.

GMF’s advice to Australian ports and exporters is that the transition is already underway, even if some policy settings are still being finalised. No‑regrets investments such as efficiency improvements, digitalisation, workforce capability, shore power, alternative fuel readiness and green corridor partnerships will help organisations remain competitive as global markets evolve.

Early movers may face additional costs and uncertainty, but GMF said they are also best placed to capture future opportunities as demand for low-emission shipping and fuels grows.