A global decision, an African consequence
When delegates from 175 maritime nations met in London this October, the expectation was that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) would adopt the world’s first binding plan to decarbonise global shipping. Instead, the week ended in division. The Net-Zero Framework was delayed for at least a year, and the political fallout now threatens to reshape trade routes, investment flows, and competitiveness across Africa’s ports.
The setback could not have come at a worse time. Shipping accounts for over 80 per cent of Africa’s international trade volume and 3 per cent of global emissions. With the IMO plan shelved, the cost of Africa’s delayed transition could be profound—ranging from stranded port assets to lost export competitiveness in emerging low-carbon markets.
Africa’s high exposure
Africa’s maritime economies are deeply dependent on global shipping routes. From Mombasa and Dar es Salaam in East Africa to Lagos, Tema, and Durban in the west and south, ports are both trade lifelines and economic multipliers. According to the African Development Bank, seaborne trade underpins up to 95 per cent of the continent’s export earnings.
The IMO’s proposed Net-Zero Framework would have accelerated investment in cleaner fuel infrastructure such as green ammonia and methanol bunkering. Its delay now creates uncertainty for African port authorities already planning costly retrofits. Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) officials have privately warned that “climate-aligned financing for port expansion is at risk if decarbonisation timelines remain unclear.”
For landlocked economies, Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia, and Niger, the stakes are even higher. Any future carbon levies imposed unilaterally by Europe or Asia will raise freight costs, directly inflating import prices and undermining competitiveness of key exports such as tea, coffee, minerals, and manufactured goods.
A political storm in London
At the IMO headquarters in London, the October negotiations quickly descended into geopolitical wrangling. Delegates accused the United States of pressuring small island and developing nations to withdraw support for the Net-Zero Framework, which Washington had branded a “global carbon tax on Americans.”
Saudi Arabia, China, and India backed calls to delay adoption. Kenya, initially supportive of the plan, also voted for postponement, citing concerns about rising import prices. The final tally, 57 in favour of delay, 49 against, and 21 abstentions, reflected how far global consensus had eroded since the framework’s approval in April.
The delay has left shipowners and port operators in limbo. “Industry needs clarity to make the investments needed to decarbonise the maritime sector,” said Thomas Kazakos, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping.
Equity versus ambition
African and Caribbean delegates raised legitimate concerns over cost impacts. The IMO’s proposed levy, starting at US$100 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising to US$380 for higher emitters, would have funded a Net-Zero Fund expected to raise up to US$12 billion annually by 2030. Yet the mechanism for distributing that revenue remains vague.
Dominica’s ambassador Benoit Bardouille warned that “without clear assurances on equitable access, the poorest economies will bear the heaviest burden.” Papua New Guinea’s delegate Pawa Limu made a similar plea for transparency.
African analysts share the concern. A 2024 study by the African Climate Foundation estimated that the continent’s maritime fuel transition could cost between US$20 billion and US$25 billion by 2035. Without an equitable global fund, that transition risks being deferred indefinitely.
Strategic implications for Africa
1. Trade competitiveness
If Europe and Asia implement regional carbon border mechanisms, African exporters could face implicit penalties for goods shipped via high-emission routes. This could erode competitiveness in agricultural and manufacturing exports unless Africa’s fleets and ports adapt swiftly.
2. Infrastructure investment
Delays in IMO rules deter private capital. Green bond investors and development financiers are already embedding emission-reduction criteria in maritime infrastructure loans. A prolonged policy vacuum could make African ports less bankable.
3. Regional opportunity
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) could use this interregnum to develop an African Maritime Decarbonisation Framework aligned with the continent’s climate finance architecture. This would position Africa to negotiate on collective terms at the next IMO round.
4. Fuel innovation
South Africa, Egypt, and Namibia have early-mover potential in green hydrogen and ammonia production. Integrating these into regional port systems could help Africa shape the emerging clean-fuel supply chain instead of being a passive consumer.
The cost of inaction
Tristan Smith, an energy and transport expert at University College London, estimates that global shipping costs could rise between 5 per cent by 2028 and up to 20 per cent by 2035 under any future decarbonisation regime. For Africa, that translates into higher costs of food, fertiliser, and machinery imports.
Yet small island states like Vanuatu remind the world that the alternative, unchecked emissions, poses an existential risk. “If we do not act, we will lose our future,” said delegate Lloyd Fikiasi. The same applies to Africa’s coastal cities, from Lagos to Beira, where rising sea levels threaten millions.
What African leaders must do now
The collapse of the IMO talks does not remove Africa from the frontlines of the transition. It heightens the need for leadership:
- Develop an African Green Shipping Strategy through the African Union and AfCFTA secretariat to coordinate investments in clean port infrastructure and vessel upgrades.
- Negotiate collectively for a fair share of the IMO Net-Zero Fund when it is revived, ensuring small and import-dependent economies are protected.
- Incentivise private sector innovation through tax credits, blended finance, and green shipping corridors linking Mombasa, Durban, and Abidjan.
- Integrate port decarbonisation into national climate plans (NDCs) to unlock concessional financing from the Green Climate Fund.
Conclusion
The failed vote in London is a warning: global maritime decarbonisation will not wait for consensus. Africa’s economic resilience depends on anticipating that shift, not reacting to it. The continent’s leaders have a window—perhaps a year—to design a framework that protects trade, attracts investment, and secures a just maritime transition.
The tide toward net-zero shipping is inevitable. The question is whether Africa will drift with it—or chart its own course.
