Previewing MEPC 83 With Maersk and Lemissoler

The 83rd meeting of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) is fast approaching, with potentially industry-shaking decisions set to be discussed and possibly agreed upon.

On this episode of Setting Course, an ABS Podcast, Sanne Henriksen, Head of IMO and EU Public and Regulatory Affairs at A.P. Moller-Maersk, Philippos Philis, Founder, Chairman, and CEO of Lemissoler Group, and Stamatis Fradelos, ABS Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, join host Brad Cox, ABS, to discuss their expectations for MEPC 83 and how it could impact the maritime industry.

If you like this episode, share it with your friends, leave a review, or send feedback to podcast@eagle.org. Learn more about how ABS is supporting the maritime industry at www.eagle.org.

After you listen, get a recap of MEPC 83 here: https://ww2.eagle.org/en/rules-and-resources/regulatory-updates/MEPC-83.html

Key Points

• MEPC 83 is expected to be a historic meeting for shipping.
• Decarbonization requires a fair and effective regulatory framework.
• Alternative fuels must be viable and available for transition.
• The shipping industry must prepare for carbon pricing mechanisms.
• Collaboration among stakeholders is crucial for successful implementation.
• The next two years will be critical for shipping's sustainability.

Guests

Sanne Henriksen is the Head of IMO and EU Public and Regulatory Affairs at A.P. Moller-Maersk. Before joining Maersk, she was the lead for Denmark at IMO GHG negotiations at the Danish Maritime Authority, contributing to the development of the IMO Initial GHG Strategy adopted in 2018. She has also worked on maritime affairs at the Danish Embassy in Washington, D.C. Earlier in her career, Sanne held several positions at the Danish Ministry of Business, Financial and Industry Affairs, where she worked on post-financial crisis reforms, the EU Banking Union, and financial regulation. She holds an MSc in Political Science from the University of Copenhagen.

Philippos Philis is the Founder, Chairman, and CEO of Lemissoler Group, leading its operations since 1996. The Group specializes in ship-owning, ship management, commercial operations, maritime digital technology, and R&D on ship efficiency and carbon footprint reduction. He is the former President of the European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA) and the Cyprus Shipping Chamber (CSC) and chaired the Cyprus Shipowners’ Employers Association (CySEA). He serves on ABS and DNV Committees and the Board of West of England P&I Club and has held positions with the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and USB Bank. Philippos holds a Mechanical Engineering degree from RWTH Aachen and is a Harvard Business School graduate. He was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the Cyprus University of Technology.

Stamatis Fradelos is ABS Vice President of Regulatory Affairs. The Regulatory Affairs team interfaces with the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Flag Administrations and the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), facilitating the application of regulations and maintaining ABS and clients’ awareness on regulatory issues being progressed and developed internationally. Stamatis is also member of IACS Board of Directors, the IACS Council and the IACS Sub-Committee on Quality Policy participating in IACS governance and strategic decisions.

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction
• 1:06 Expectations for MEPC 83
• 8:29 Hot-Button Issues
• 19:54 Next Steps for Maritime
• 29:59 Closing Thoughts

Transcript

Brad Cox (00:08)
Welcome to Setting Course, an ABS Podcast, where we're charting the future of the marine and offshore industries. I'm Brad Cox, and I'll be your host today. Another meeting of the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee, or MEPC, is upon us. As we've said before on this show, when it comes to the decarbonization of shipping, MEPC is at the center of the action. So what can we expect from the 83rd session of the MEPC?

We've brought together some industry leaders to provide a little insight into what they expect and maybe even hope to see from the meeting. On this episode today, we're happy to have Sanne Henrickson, head of IMO and EU Public and Regulatory Affairs at A.P. Moller-Maersk. Thank you for joining us, Sanne.

Sanne Frías Henriksen(00:46)
Thanks for having me.

Brad Cox (00:48)
We're also thrilled to have Philippos Philis, the founder, chairman, and CEO of Lemissoler Group. Thanks for being on the episode, Philippos.

Philippos Philis (00:55)
Thank you for inviting me, Brad.

Brad Cox (00:57)
And it's also great to once again have Stamatis Fradelos, ABS Vice President of Regulatory Affairs. Thanks for joining us, Stamatis.

Stamatis Fradelos (01:04)
Thank you, Brad, happy to be here.

Brad Cox (01:06)
So let's get started here. Looking back at MEPC 82, some of the discussion after that meeting was that the committee had delayed some big decisions, particularly around the mid-term measures. To quote one of our previous podcast guests, the committee kicked the can down the road. So with MEPC 83 around the corner, are we poised to see some big decisions being made? Sanne, is this going to be a disruptive session?

Sanne Frías Henriksen (01:29)
Yes, thanks, Brad. Yes, absolutely, we would expect so. This is potentially a historic meeting. So according to IMO’s timeline, as you said, Member States should approve the mid-term measures at this session, at MEPC83. And, on paper, it actually seems like quite an unimaginable task. You have 176 countries from around the globe, each with their own national interests, coming together in a U.N. organization, agreeing to put a price on emissions for global industry. That's pretty big, potentially, right? And when the IMO hopefully agrees in April, this could be a truly hopeful achievement in a world where I think it's safe to say that there's quite a bit of uncertainty these days. 

And you mentioned MEPC 82 and the lack of progress there, you can say. But I'd like to take a step further back because the discussions at the IMO have really evolved significantly over time. And actually, the carbon pricing discussion started some 20 years ago or so. And then in 2018, we had the adoption of the initial strategy, setting a target to reduce shipping emissions by 50 percent in 2050, which was considered quite ambitious at the time. And then five years later, in 2023, we had the adoption of the final strategy with the net-zero target in 2050. And now we're finally moving into implementation of the strategies and hopefully turning these targets into actual regulations. 

So, the IMO has come a long way. And I think, if I can just say, I think the progress is driven by mainly two key factors. First, that there's definitely political will now and there's a broad recognition that the climate crisis needs urgent action. Shipping emits something around 800 million tons of CO2 equivalents a year. So that has to be addressed. And I think there's really broad agreement that the IMO needs to act. 

And then secondly, there's really industry readiness, as we see it, and industry is pushing for change. And we have the technologies, we have the fuels that are becoming scalable, but because of the cost gap between alternative and fossil fuels, because it's still so big, we do need this regulation. You can say that we spoke for some time about a chicken and egg situation. Where to get first is to order the ships or to get the fuels? That dilemma has shifted, you can say. We have the ships and the fuels, but we now need the regulation, which is now the regulation is the missing piece. And we need a fair and effective regulation to drive shipping and to decarbonization.

Brad Cox (04:15)
And you know, Philippos, what do you think? Do you feel like this is going to be a big session?

Philippos Philis (04:20)
Yes, I will try not to repeat a few things that Sanne said. I believe MEPC 83 has the potential to be a game-changer session, but whether it delivers headline-making results will depend on how much progress is made on mid-term measures. Unlike short-term measures like EEXI, CII, and SEEMP, which are mostly technically have a limited financial impact, the mid-term measures come with serious economic consequences, not just for shipping industry, but for IMO Member States as well. So that's where the real debate lies. How will these funds be raised? How much will they amount to? And just as important, how will they be distributed?

The challenge to my understanding is finding the right balance between the IMO's ambitious 23 greenhouse strategy and ensuring a fair transition, especially for least developed countries and Small Island Developing States. Now MEPC 82, my opinion, they didn't delay any decisions. It gave exactly the different sides the chance to clarify their positions and work toward compromise ahead of MEPC 83. But now, the pressure is on. 

The industry definitely needs clarity, particularly on market-based measures and fuel transition policies. If the committee takes firm steps forward, we could see major announcements. But with all these complex political dynamics and competing national interests, progress might still be slow and cautious rather than bold and very decisive. That being said, expectations from the industry and everybody are very high. MEPC 83 will be probably a defining moment and we know it's going to go down to the wire. Any real movement, whether in policy direction or clear implementation timelines, will be crucial in shaping what happens next, what will be the future of the industry in the immediate and medium term. We have seen in the past that IMO tackled tough negotiations and there is confidence that it will deliver again. But if delays continue, then we may expect frustration amongst stakeholders and this will only grow and grow, putting even more pressure on future meetings to take action. One thing is certain, all eyes are on MEPC 83.

Brad Cox (07:10)
Thank you. And Stamatis, what do you think we should expect from MEPC 83?

Stamatis Fradelos (07:15)
Thank you, Brad. I think both Sanne and Philippos very well provided the importance of this meeting and potentially becoming a headline-grabbing event. I would only like to add that we had some good progress during MEPC 82, but there were many crucial decisions which were deferred for this session, particularly concerning the specifics of the pricing mechanisms and the technical measures and also the importance of food security, which is another matter.

I think as previously mentioned, also the outcomes of the inter-sessional meetings, we have the 18th already concluded and the 19th GHG inter-sessional meeting, which is leading up to MEPC 83, are critical in shaping these discussions because there are still some divergences and we need to prepare for the approval of the mid-term measures. But in general, I think all stakeholders are eager for clear regulatory regime, removing the current uncertainty in order to drive this decarbonization strategy.

Brad Cox (08:29)
Thank you, Stamatis. So, obviously you guys mentioned kind of the complexity here. Philippos, what do you think is going to be the hottest button issues we're going to see? Is it going to be those mid-term measures? Is it going to be the fuel standard? What's going to really stand out?

Philippos Philis (08:43)
MEPC 83 is shaping up to be a defining session with the biggest debates centered around mid-term measures for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and especially market-based measures and fuel standards. The key question here is will the IMO adopt a single measure that combines both technical and economic elements or will it go for two separate measures? There are voices saying that neither work without the other. Let's see how this will develop. 

At MEPC 82, we saw a very strong coalition of over 60 countries, including ICS, major Flag States like Liberia and Bahamas, the 27 EU countries, Japan, and Small Island Developing States pushing for a separate economic measure, namely a fund and reward system. But on the other side, we have China, several Latin American countries, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and a number of African nations remain firmly opposed to this approach. This will be a very difficult debate. 

Now, if no compromise is found, the IMO is under high pressure to deliver, may move forward with the adoption of technical measures, I mean the greenhouse gases fuel standard. But to address the economic aspect, we will see a financial mechanism introduced possibly involving the purchase of remedial units or trade surplus units through a pooling system or other possible mechanism. But that's one part of the picture. 

There are several other critical issues that will shape the outcome of this session. We are talking about the carbon pricing mechanism, particularly the levy system, which will be a major point of discussion. The big question here is whether the IMO can move toward a global market-based measure, or if regional systems like EU ETS will continue to lead the way. On top we can expect extensive discussions on stricter fuel regulations and life-cycle greenhouse gases criteria. The focus here will be on ensuring that alternative fuels like for example ammonia, methanol and eventually biofuels, actually deliver meaningful emissions reductions. So, the life-cycle analysis is crucial to capture all the different production processes. 

Then what we expect is that since IMO strategy of 2023 is in place, it's time to move from just a commitment to real action. The industry is watching closely for very specific policies and clear implementation timelines, which now we don't have. Additionally, I believe we need to evaluate the short-term vs. long-term action with 2040, 2050 decarbonization targets already set.

Some stakeholders are urging for stronger enforcement of short-term measures like EEXI, CII and this progress needs to be sped up. At the end of the day, MEPC 83 has the potential to drive major policy shifts. If a consensus can be reached, it's another story. But if the divisions remain, we will see more delays, a continuous uncertainty within the industry and of course growing frustrations across all especially the ship-owning side. One thing is certain, this will be a very high-stakes session and the negotiations will likely go right down to the wire up to the last final moments. Decisions won't come easy and the real breakthroughs, if they happen, will probably be at the very late stage.

Brad Cox (12:49)
Thank you, Philippos. And Sanne, what do you guys see is going to be the big issues that are really going to generate a lot of conversation?

Sanne Frías Henriksen (12:57)
Yeah, so definitely, of course, all eyes are on the mid-term measures and the discussions that Philippos just outlined here on the actual instrument that should drive shipping to decarbonize. For Maersk, regardless of which composition of these elements, you have a fuel standard and an economic element, which is chosen, I think, for us, there's really three key elements that needs to be at the core of these mid-term measures. 

So, first of all, ensuring that the transition actually happens. And that has to do with ensuring that the industry cannot just pay to pollute. So we have to ensure that we have a sufficiently high price, whichever the price instrument you choose, we have a sufficiently high price to ensure that we don't pay to pollute. So that's the first one. 

Secondly, ensuring that the transition happens in the right pace. And that has to do with the reduction trajectory and what the IMO is talking about, set factors, reduction factors, that you secure a sufficiently steep reduction trajectory. 

And then the third element is to secure the right transition. And that's really critical. And that's where the devil is really in the details here. And that's what we're also trying to emphasize now and urge Member States to also look into the details and how the measures will be operationalized by industry.

When I'm talking about this third element and the right transition, it has to do with first, ensuring that the transition is actually sustainable. As Philippos has also mentioned, that's the life-cycle assessment discussions that is also running in parallel with this at the IMO. And then secondly, the second element is to ensure that a system that rewards and penalizes fuels and technologies based on their actual greenhouse gas impact, so that they're penalized and rewarded proportionally to their impact. 

This is where I'd maybe like to go into a little bit further details on the fuel standard. Because at Maersk we of course modeled the different proposals on the table and we have identified an issue in the fuel standard component of the measure. And it gets a little bit technical here. So, the fuel standard sets a limit on the carbon intensity of the fuels. And the issue occurs when the fees are calculated based on the deviations from a carbon intensity target rather than based on the total emissions. 

So, it's pure mathematics here actually. But the impact is really big. And this is actually a feature that also exists in Fuel EU Maritime, which is also a fuel standard similar to what the IMO is working on. And the consequence of this is really significant because what happens is that with this fuel standard, you disproportionately benefit methane while disadvantaging other alternatives like methanol or ammonia. 

And as an example, for instance, fossil LNG would get a benefit of 50 percent compared to VLSFO in 2035. Even though fossil LNG has, for instance, let's say it had a reduction potential of 19 percent, you would get a 50 percent benefit. So that is very disproportional. And in practice, that means that the regulatory cost of a ship that consumes 20,000 tons of fuel a year would save around $8 million sailing on fossil LNG compared to VLSFO, very low sulfur fuel oil. So, $8 million on a single vessel is a lot. 

So, according to our analysis, and as we see it, this would really weaken the business case for other alternatives like methanol and ammonia and pushing the industry into a single fuel pathway on methane. Just let me make clear that we of course see methane as one perfectly viable solution also to drive decarbonization of shipping. But as we see it, we do need several pathways to get the entire industry to zero. 

This was a bit of a technical explanation, but it's all just to say that it's really important to dive into these details now before adoption and also to see how industry would adopt these measures. And there is actually a solution to this also, that you can actually adjust the equations so that you get a perfectly proportional impact and regulatory cost on the different fuel options.

Brad Cox (17:31)
And Stamatis, what do you see are going to be the big hot button issues that get discussed at the meeting?

Stamatis Fradelos (17:36)
Well, Brad, MEPC 83 is setting up to be a major session as previously discussed and there are some hot issues which are likely to dominate the discussions. I think almost all of them have been covered by Sanne and Philippos. I would only like to add possibly an important matter is the support for developing nations. There has been ongoing tension over how any carbon pricing mechanisms or fuel standard would impact developing countries and Small Island Developing States, which rely heavily on maritime trade. So, I would expect some intense negotiation over financing mechanisms to ensure a just and equitable transition.

Sanne and Philippos mentioned a lot the alternative fuels and infrastructure readiness. As IMO’s push for net-zero shipping depends of course on viable alternative fuels like green methanol for example, green hydrogen, ammonia. But questions remain about availability, safety standards and global infrastructure. So I would expect MEPC may debate over how the IMO can drive investments in these areas. 

Another topic is the implementation timeline because looking into the recent report from the intersessional working group, the GHG 18, I have not identified a clear implementation date. The initial goal was for these regulations to enter into force by 2027. But this is an ambitious timeline given the political and technical hurdles. So maybe some countries and industry players push for more time, possibly one year postponement starting in 2028. So, we may have some discussion on this item as well. 

And as Philippos mentioned previously, I think the short-term measures will be also an important topic, especially on the CII, since many in the industry have raised concerns about the fairness and effectiveness. Some revisions could be discussed there.

Brad Cox (19:54)
So obviously it sounds like there's a lot of big things coming down the pipeline. Whatever changes MEPC has in store for shipping, what are going to be the key steps forward for the industry? Philippos, what do you think?

Philippos Philis (20:06)
No matter what happens at MEPC 83, the shipping industry, as Sanne mentioned before in various statements, can't afford to wait. It has to stay ahead of regulatory changes and keep pushing forward on decarbonization. 

What do we need to do internally, for example, if IMO moves ahead with a global carbon pricing mechanism or a levy or whatever this will be? Shipping companies will need to factor carbon costs into their business models. That means optimizing fuel efficiency, integrating greenhouse gas price strategies, and preparing for the long-term compliance, which in fact needs a lot of planning. 

Then the industry, with the regulations tightening around fuel life-cycle emissions, we have no choice but to accelerate investments in alternative fuels like ammonia, methanol or biofuels and eventually any other new, which is not known yet, but it's not just about upgrading the fleets. It's about working closely with ports, suppliers to assure that the right infrastructure is in place at the time that will be necessary. Which is very important as Stamatis did mention before that the supply is still a point of uncertainty. 

On top of that, we need to, as shipowners, as an industry to enhance the energy efficiency measures. With EEXI and CII regulations getting stricter, the shipowners need to double down on operational efficiency. That could mean some technical and some operational measures, for example, retrofitting the vessels, adding new energy-saving devices, etc. But also commercially implementing slow steaming and other commercial measures, plus using AI-driven route optimization and other digital solutions to cut emissions. And this is possible. We see that within, particularly our company, we implement all these measures and we saw already a drastic emissions reductions. 

What additionally is very important, as all these policies are becoming more concrete and tangible, the companies need to refine their investment strategies. Explore green financing, partnerships on new technologies, smart planning and deploying of their capital and their capital expenditures. All this will be crucial to remain relevant and stay compliant without breaking the bank, in other words.

Of course, ensuring a just and equitable transition, concerns of developing nations are becoming bigger and bigger. This will be part of the discussions during the MEPC 83, especially when it comes to market-based revenue and distribution and also to assess the low-carbon technology. The industry here needs to step up and support fair implementation because a transition that isn't equitable won't be sustainable in the long run. 

One additional thing is that we need a balance between regional and global regulations. We as industry prefer global regulations and practically not any regional regulations to exist. If the IMO process drags on, regional framework like the ETS will take the lead and eventually FuelEU as well. And that could lead to fragmented regulations, which is not to the benefit of the industry. Companies will have to stay agile navigating both global rules and regional compliance requirements. One thing that has been several times said is the additional administrative burden and in particular for SMEs, which is the majority of the ship-owning companies. 

One last thing is that whether MEPC 83 brings big reforms or just an incremental progress, one thing is clear: early action, strategic investments and proactive compliance planning will be the key for the survival of the ship-owning industry. So, the industry must keep moving toward the net zero, no matter how fast or slow the regulations catch up.

Brad Cox (24:41)
Alright, thank you, Philippos. And Sanne, what do you guys think are going to be the key steps forward for the industry?

Sanne Frías Henriksen (24:47)
Yeah, so I think as Philippos has also mentioned, we do need the entire value chain for shipping to be fully engaged, which I think we're also seeing to a large extent actually. So that's really positive. Shipowners, cargo owners, energy producers and everyone is really being accelerated, the development these years. However, again, now is the time where the regulation is needed to push. 

And from Maersk’s side, we've also been through quite a development. We announced our first dual-fueled methanol vessel in 2021. Then in 2022, we launched our 2040 target to be net-zero in 2040 and placed additional orders for more dual-fueled vessels. And at the time we were first movers. And since then we've seen others follow, which is exactly what we hoped for and really positive. And today we have 11 dual-fuel vessels operating. So that's a really good development. However, then in 2024, we saw a shift back globally towards LNG, where more LNG fuel vessels were ordered than methanol vessels.

And in Maersk, we have also diversified our fuel options to include dual-fueled methane alongside methanol. And that's all good. But as mentioned, now it's really crucial that the IMO doesn't drive all of us into one pathway only, because there’s simply not sufficient feedstock to fuel one of these alternative fuel pathways. So that's back to the issue that there's really a need to dive into the impact of this and look at how industry will do the business cases based on this regulation. That's what the result we’ll see. Also considering that shipping is a hard to abate sector. Unlike road transport, we cannot simply electrify all our ships at scale overnight. So, we do need all viable options on the table to reach these targets.

Brad Cox (26:47)
Thank you, Sanne. And Stamatis, class societies are in a pretty unique position in supporting all of this. So, what do you think are going to be the key steps forward for the industry?

Stamatis Fradelos (26:56)
Yes, thank you, Brad. I think Sanne and Philippos described very well what is needed, what are the key steps for transition toward a lower carbon future from the industry perspective. I would only like to add mainly the transition for crew and workforce. As the industry adopts new fuels and technologies with the potential safety issues, seafarers will need new skills. So, the industry needs to invest in crew training for handling these new fuels, safety, bunkering procedures, etc., support actually the workforce transition programs to prevent skill gaps, and advocate for global standards in training and certification, and this is an area where the class society can take a role.

But I think in general from our side, the class societies are all supportive of the work for the regulators. I think there is a lot of work to be done in the next year because as previously mentioned, MEPC is expected to approve the general framework of the mid-term measures. So, we're going to have this new chapter five into the MARPOL Annex VI, so this net-zero framework. But more work will come after work. You know, the specifics of how carbon pricing would work, how revenue will be used, the fuel standard, etc. So, a list of several guidelines have already been provided. These guidelines need to be developed over the next few years in order to have a proper implementation of this new framework.

MEPC needs also to address concerns from developing nations, especially Small Islands Developing States, about costing impacts and access to low-carbon fuels. And Philippos mentioned, I think this is also a very important element, we're receiving a lot of concerns about how IMO will consider how its policies interact with regional regulation like EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime regulation and hopefully leading to the withdrawal or at least alignment of these regional measures.

These are issues that MEPC needs to address. The life-cycle guidelines, will need of course a lot of work there. We have seen the first version which has been approved, but there is a lot of work. MEPC needs to complete this scientific review of the well-to-tank and tank-to-wake GHG default emission factors and also we need robust, clear verification and certification guidelines for marine fuels to ensure a level playing field.

Brad Cox (29:59)
Okay, great. So, you know, wrapping up here, I wanted to give each of you some time to share any closing thoughts you might have for our listeners. Sanne, would you like to go first on that one?

Sanne Frías Henriksen (30:08)
Yeah, I think from our perspective, the IMO is really at a turning point here and we do have a unique opportunity to set global shipping on a path towards decarbonization. And the right regulatory design, which will likely hopefully be approved at the upcoming session, will make it or break it in terms of the transition.

And we are, as mentioned, in Maersk, and many others in the industry, we are ready to move, but we do need the regulation to ensure a fair and science-based and effective transition. And that's of course fair in terms of, of course, both a just and equitable transition, which is also important for many member states. That's really crucial. And then also effective and science-based in the guidelines work, both in the actual MARPOL Annex VI amendments and also in the LCA guidelines that we've talked about before and Stamatis also just mentioned, that will really drive also the demand for certain fuels and we have to make sure that it is genuinely sustainable and robust, that framework.

So, member states, IMO secretariat and the chair of the working group, they still have quite a monumental task ahead of them and we should really truly recognize and applaud how far they've come. At this last phase, the last few weeks left, we just really like to emphasize the need to do the modeling and the analysis as mentioned on how we in the industry will operationalize this regulation. That would be a really important aspect. And if we get this right, this could be a defining moment for global shipping and for climate action.

Brad Cox (31:52)
Thank you, Sanne. And Philippos, any closing thoughts for our listeners?

Philippos Philis (31:55)
Yes, thank you, Brad. I will be very brief because a lot was mentioned by Sanne already. A couple of weeks before MEPC 83, one thing is for certain, the shipping industry stands at a pivotal moment. So the deferral of key decisions at MEPC 82 has only highlighted expectations for tangible progress, especially on mid-term measures. 

We have a couple of very pressing issues. Market-based measures, fuel standards, the regulatory certainty, and the financial mechanism. These will shape not just this session, but the industry's trajectory for years to come. So, concluding, regardless of the immediate outcome, the industry must remain proactive, preparing for potential carbon pricing, investing in alternative fuels, optimizing the fleet efficiency, which are no longer optional but essential strategies for long-term competitiveness.

Brad Cox (32:56)
Thank you, Philippos. And Stamatis, any closing thoughts?

Stamatis Fradelos (33:00)
Yes, thank you, Brad. So, I think it is obvious from the discussion we had today that the next two years will be critical for shaping shipping's long-term sustainability. So, while MEPC 83 will likely approve, as we mentioned, the general framework, the key policies, the focus will quickly shift to implementation, enforcements, and adjusting the regulatory framework because we need to ensure our ambitious but also practical outcome, how these measures will actually be implemented. 

So for me, the most important element on this work we have in front of us is to continue the dialogue and the cooperation. So I believe that policymakers and the industry stakeholders, we need to work closely to ensure that global shipping can meet its climate commitments, but also of course remaining economically viable.

Brad Cox (34:02)
Well, Sanne, Philippos, Stamatis, thank you all for joining us on this episode. This was a great discussion and it sounds like this could be a really big MEPC session. And of course, special thank you to Maersk and Lemissoler for being part of this episode.

Philippos Philis (34:16)
Thank you as well Brad.

Sanne Frías Henriksen (34:18)
Yeah. Thanks a lot.

Stamatis Fradelos (34:19)
Thank you, Brad.

Brad Cox (34:20)
And for everybody listening, thank you for joining us for another episode of Setting Course. Be sure to subscribe, leave a review, and share this episode. To keep up with the latest regulatory news from MEPC and beyond, visit us at www.eagle.org. Thank you for listening.