Q: Do current UK and international frameworks give industry enough clarity?

The destination, for sure, is clear: net zero by 2050. However, in reality, the pathway is currently uncertain, and that uncertainty makes long term investment decisions incredibly difficult.

In the UK, we know that infrastructure is lagging behind and presents our major challenge currently. Grid capacity is insufficient and there is no comprehensive strategy to support the evolution of port infrastructure or fuel supply.

Practical challenges aside, current frameworks rely heavily on the “stick” to force change and simply do not provide enough “carrot” to encourage moves at speed or in one direction, especially for second movers.

De‑risking investment must be the priority. That means CAPEX and OPEX support to close cost gaps and enable second movers, supported by predictable long‑term policies to build investor confidence, and ‘contracts for difference’ to support fuel production.

Despite this, the industry globally is successfully decarbonising using every tool available, and will continue to do so, until the global position is achieved.

Q: How closely do UK policies track with what is happening at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)?

The UK shares the same destination as the IMO, but has higher ambitions, particularly for 2030 and 2040.

However, while the IMO is working on a global measure, the UK is creating another regional carbon pricing system, which will inevitably mean different rules, deadlines, and compliance cycles, making it very hard to be fully compliant all over the world. 
It’s also worth highlighting here that the UK also lacks a comprehensive equivalent to the EU’s Fit for 55 package.

As a result, the UK is adding complexity and administrative burden without offering meaningful incentives. For example, the UK ETS applies to emissions in port, meaning a tramp vessel calling for only a few hours – even if the operator is based in another jurisdiction, must still prepare full documentation and face a high administrative burden for a very small emissions footprint.

Q: Is regulatory fragmentation becoming a real operational risk?

Unfortunately, fragmentation is already happening, and more countries are developing carbon levies and fuel mandates as a path to net zero.

Of course this increases administrative burden, but more significantly it risks competitiveness distortion. To reduce this friction, alignment at IMO level on core metrics, data standards, fuel certification and lifecycle analysis would help, along with a consistent drive towards the same goal on a similar timeline.

A good example of how fragmented the regulatory horizon could be focuses on a tramp vessel trading between the UK, EU and Brazil in 2026. On its journey it will face EU MRV, FuelEU, UK MRV for port emissions, and Brazil’s biofouling rules, all for one operator. This lack of alignment does not support decarbonisation or environmental performance, it simply makes compliance harder for those running ships.

Q: Finally, as you look ahead, what can you see on your Horizon Scan for shipping’s route to decarbonisation?

That is simple: the next decade will hinge on whether policy can keep pace with industry ambition. Shipping is already moving; the question is whether governments provide the clarity, infrastructure and incentives to match it.