Is Climate Justice Adrift?

When the gavel finally fell at the IMO’s MEPC83 in April 2025, it marked what should have been a historic moment for climate action in the shipping sector. It wasn’t.

… says Eldine Chilembo Glees MNI of the Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport (MCST) in a clear statement.

‘Instead, for those of us representing Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), it felt like another painful example of how global climate governance continues to protect the interests of the powerful rather than the vulnerable.The outcome was not just disappointing; it was emblematic of the structural biases that continue to shape international climate negotiations.

Compexity undermines action

The final agreement is not only complicated; it excludes up to 90% of shipping emissions with reduced 2030 targets (which will deliver only 5–10% emission reductions). In place of a straightforward GHG levy that would have created clear decarbonization incentives and generated significant revenue for climate-vulnerable countries, we got a complex credit trading mechanism that risks undermining real climate action.The high-ambition proposal for a flat price on emissions, supported by the vast majority of countries, including SIDS and LDCs, was straightforward and backed by extensive scientific modeling showing it would achieve climate targets in an affordable and equitable way.

Not fiction but reality

Yet the negotiations turned away from this evidence-based approach to favor a system that largely protects business as usual.I am reminded of the powerful scene from the play ‘Kyoto’ where the delegate from Kiribati stands to defend island nations, declaring, “Sea level rise will threaten survival! It will drown our crops… it will settle into our fresh water supplies… will bleach our coral reefs and kill our mangrove forests… It will erode our coastlines. It will destroy our homes…”

These words, though dramatized for the stage, reflect our lived reality. For island nations, climate change is not an abstract future threat but a present emergency. The rising seas are already claiming our shorelines, saltwater is contaminating our groundwater, and increasingly severe weather events are destroying critical infrastructure.

As demonstrated by Tuvalu Minister Simon Kofe at MEPC 83, the Pacific perspective emphasizes human security over state-centric approaches. Pacific leaders consistently frame climate change as the single biggest threat to the region and advocate for expanded concepts of security that include human security, humanitarian assistance, and environmental security. And the reason this is so important is because this brings a much needed counternarrative to international discussions.

Not victims but powerful Pacific women

Pacific island nations have consistently challenged the portrayal of small islands as helpless victims and instead positioned themselves as stewards of a vast, resource-rich ocean, collectively known as the “Blue Pacific.”
In contrast, the situation at the IMO parallels exactly what researcher Elise Howard has documented in broader climate negotiations affecting Pacific women. In her analysis, Howard demonstrated how, despite being well-represented numerically in climate forums, Pacific delegates face marginalization through subtle yet powerful institutional biases. Their voices heard but ultimately overruled by procedural dynamics that prioritized complexity over clarity and powerful shipping interests over climate imperatives.

Positive

I like to end on a positive note, so I will say that while the current IMO framework has significant limitations, it provides a baseline we can build on:I believe that technological innovations like wind propulsion offer pathways to decarbonization that are more accessible to developing nations and less dependent on complex carbon markets or biofuel supply chains.

I believe the formation of cross-regional solidarity between African nations, Pacific and Caribbean Island states, and other vulnerable regions could shift power dynamics in international negotiations.I believe the work ahead should involve strengthening implementation, addressing gaps, and continuing to push for more ambitious and equitable solutions in future rounds of negotiation. I believe in a Just and Equitable Transition.’

This column was published on LinkedIn.

Windassist sponsor