John Taukave is technical and cultural adviser to Pacific delegations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a Rotuman performing artist and a doctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam.
When a little-known UN agency meets in London this month to adopt a deal to cut shipping emissions, it will be up to governments to turn July’s groundbreaking ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) into concrete climate action.
For us, people living in small island states across Oceania, shipping is not a distant, abstract sector – it is our lifeline. Vessels bring medicine and food, while ensuring a connection with the rest of the world. But global shipping is also a major source of emissions, which the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has a duty to address.
October’s IMO meeting is a critical test of whether countries will heed the ICJ ruling by embedding its principles into the Net-Zero Framework, a legally binding regulation that represents the world’s first truly global emission pricing mechanism.
In April, the IMO made world headlines when governments agreed the draft Framework after a long and painstaking negotiating process, and the agreement now needs to be formally adopted in October for it to enter into force in 2027.
Gaps and loopholes
Despite marking a huge achievement in global cooperation and multilateralism, there are still many gaps in the Framework that need to be clarified for it to deliver on the climate action we need, however.
The deal has been criticised by our countries – which abstained in the vote in April in protest – and climate experts, who have said it is too weak, too slow and riddled with loopholes.
Some critics have argued that the Framework risks becoming a “pay-to-pollute” system, allowing wealthy operators to carry on business as usual while we continue to bear the brunt of rising seas.
Oceania states have long been pushing for a flat emission fee on shipping, or a carbon levy, at the IMO, which would bring this sector much closer to the Paris Agreement as well as help drive the most cost-effective clean energy transition.
A first step
But if the scheme is flawed, the answer is not to undermine it, but to strengthen it – in the spirit of the ICJ ruling, which we will carry with us at the IMO. I believe the IMO Net-Zero Framework, if adopted, is just a first step.
The most important element is to guarantee shipping’s green transition is fair and equitable. This will require that the revenues collected from the carbon pricing, worth up to $15 billion a year in 2030, are allocated in a way that prioritises climate-vulnerable countries and those most affected by the impacts of climate change and can help us build climate-resilient transport and shipping systems we can depend on.
The Framework must also incentivise real, long-term clean energy solutions, like renewably produced e-fuels and wind technologies. Without these incentives, the IMO risks locking shipping into cheap and unsustainable alternatives like high-risk biofuels or climate-heating liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Rising seas and climate reality
International climate negotiations are often riddled with the challenge of bringing our stories and perspectives to a rigid world of suits, spreadsheets and square brackets. By participating in climate diplomacy events, I share the voices of my Temamfua – ancestors in the native Rotuman language – and share with them about my Ö’hön, which means both mother and Mother Earth, and how we keep mistreating our Ö’hön, yet she keeps loving us back.
Climate change is a lived reality for us, the people of Oceania.
When I followed the proclamation of the Hague court’s ruling in July, I thought of our family house in Malha’a, on my home island of Rotuma, Fiji, and the vast nearby beach that has steadily disappeared under the waves over the years. I thought of children in Kiribati studying the maps of islands they can no longer walk upon, and of the saltwater in our wells and reefs bleaching.
That is why the ICJ’s ruling was a moral victory that affirmed what we have always known and fought for: climate action is a binding legal obligation for all states. High-emitting countries have the responsibility to mitigate climate change and can no longer hide behind claims of sovereignty or economic difficulty.
When we meet in London again this month, I hope delegates remember that behind their debates and arguments on metrics and fuel standards stand real islands, real peoples and real futures. The ICJ has given us legal recognition. Whatever IMO member states decide, I will stand strong with fellow peoples of Oceania to remind states of their obligations under international law.
