As we enter 2026, the maritime sector moves into a period shaped less by steady, predictable change and more by the need to manage uncertainty. Over the past year, geopolitical tensions, uneven economic conditions, and differing regulatory approaches created a landscape where clarity is limited and maintaining strategic flexibility is essential.
The decision at IMO’s ES.2 session to defer the vote on the Net-Zero Framework (NZF) for one year was not a procedural pause but exposed the divisions between key member states and signalled that shipping’s regulatory trajectory will be more contested than expected.
Regulatory Fragmentation and the Cost of Uncertainty
The immediate effect of the NZF postponement is regulatory fragmentation. Markets dislike uncertainty, and shipping is a capital-intensive sector. A one-year delay pushes long-term decisions further out and increases the influence of regional frameworks, most notably the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime. Until alignment is restored, more owners will calibrate investment decisions not on global signals but on stringent regional rules and the commercial patterns of their fleets.
Still, this pause allows for open discussions that must address the concerns raised by several member states. The work continues, and the expectation is that all parties will contribute to shaping an acceptable and workable framework.
Within this debate, perspectives also differed within Europe. As the world’s largest shipping nation, Greece—and Greek shipping’s global scale, diverse fleet profile, and exposure to multiple trades—naturally gives rise to a wide range of views on the NZF and on the speed and structure of the transition. This diversity is neither surprising nor negative; it reflects the realities faced by an industry operating in every major market and regulatory environment, and the Greek one has always approached change with a strategic outlook.
In the meantime, practical implications remain. For financiers, the pause complicates risk assessment at a moment when green-finance instruments are tied directly to emissions trajectories. For technology developers, it freezes assumptions on the scale of future demand. And for owners, it prolongs hesitation precisely when the average fleet age is rising and renewal cycles should be accelerating.
The long-term risk is a two-speed regulatory world: one bloc pursuing binding decarbonization measures, and another favouring voluntary approaches. Re-harmonizing these paths in 2026 will require diplomatic alignment at IMO level, along with a realistic understanding of energy-market dynamics, regional policy agendas, and technological status.
Geopolitical Environment
The geopolitical landscape has become increasingly unpredictable. Conflicts across several regions, persistent sanctions, and the redirection of global trade flows have reshaped maritime risk.
For 2026, shipping companies should assume continued volatility in key corridors, even if the Russia–Ukraine conflict ends. Red Sea disruptions may ease, but tension in the Indo-Pacific will remain. Trade protectionism is now structural, and even modest frictions can redirect cargo volumes, altering tonne-miles and vessels’ deployment.
The industry should therefore prioritise fleet flexibility, diversify port options where feasible, and invest in predictive analytics—particularly AI-supported tools—to anticipate shifts. Operational stability will depend mainly on optimisation. Companies must prepare for scenarios where traditional assumptions—secure chokepoints, stable fuel-supply chains, or predictable sanctions enforcement—are no longer fully reliable.
Decarbonization: A Year for Transitional Realism
If 2024 and 2025 were years of ambitious declarations, 2026 will be a year of operational realism. The sector will continue discussing a multi-fuel future, but investment will focus on transitional options that offer scalability, safety, and commercial sense.
LNG and bio-blended fuels will maintain momentum as realistic bridges. Rising interest in biomethane, broader availability of biofuel blends, and discussions around dual-fuel tonnage will provide near-term decarbonization pathways that align with current uncertainty rather than fixed long-term commitments.
More speculative fuels, especially ammonia and hydrogen, will continue attracting attention but will see slow uptake. Safety frameworks remain incomplete, infrastructure is insufficient, and production volumes are still low. These fuels will progress, but 2026 will be a year of targeted pilots rather than wide deployment.
Efficiency technologies for the current fleet, digital optimisation solutions, and energy-saving devices will play an important role in bridging the regulatory gap. What changes in 2026 is not the technologies themselves but the strategic context: owners will pursue marginal gains because the regulatory horizon is unclear, not because it is fixed.
A Strategic Outlook for 2026
The industry enters 2026 with three clear priorities:
- Keep flexibility in fleet and fuel planning until the regulatory direction at IMO becomes clearer.
- Strengthen operational flexibility to manage geopolitical tensions and shifting market conditions.
- Follow a practical path to decarbonization, using technologies and fuels that reduce emissions today, without committing owners to uncertain long-term choices.
Shipping has always thrived under constraint. The task for 2026 is not to eliminate uncertainty, but to navigate it with realism, adaptability, and strategic foresight.
* Chair Of The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA)
