Goran Dominioni, assistant professor in climate change law and policy at Dublin City University and visiting professor at the World Maritime University, writes for Splash today. The UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreement on the Net-Zero Framework reached last year was seen by many as the biggest climate breakthrough in recent history. A key component of this deal is its ability to generate revenue by putting a price on pollution from international shipping. Not all emission pricing mechanisms and other policies under consideration at the IMO can raise revenues, but the Net-Zero Framework does. The mechanism is in fact expected to raise $10bn-12bn a year. Here are at least seven reasons why it is vital that governments preserve or even strengthen the Framework’s ability to generate revenue. Supporting the energy transition These financial resources can help address some of the market barriers and failures that hinder the research, development, and deployment of new technologies needed to meet the ambition levels set out in the 2023 IMO GHG Strategy. The IMO made a smart choice when it decided to implement a basket of measures to deliver on the 2023 Strategy: relying on multiple policies instead of a single one can help reduce emissions effectively and cost-effectively. Well-designed subsidies can play a role in the policy mix, for instance, by facilitating large-scale infrastructure investments and increasing investor confidence. Levelling the playing field Governments around the world could support alternative technologies using their own budget. So, what is the advantage of an IMO revenue-raising mechanism? Many governments—especially in developing countries with high borrowing costs—have limited fiscal space to fund alternative technologies. An IMO mechanism that raises revenue enables these countries to invest in vital technologies and infrastructure, helping overcome financial constraints and create a more even playing field globally. Empowering recipient countries Can’t the constraints faced by developing countries be solved through existing means, such as bilateral and multilateral development programmes? Yes, but there are two key differences that make an IMO revenue-raising mechanism still worth considering. First, development assistance often comes with explicit or implicit strings attached for the recipient country. Some of these “strings” can help ensure that funds are used in the recipient country as agreed, but others are designed simply to please or benefit the donor country. An IMO revenue-raising mechanism can give recipient countries a greater voice in how the money should be used, simply because this is not “donor” money; it is systematically raised and then distributed through a collective decision-making process jointly governed by developed and developing countries. Creating a more predictable investment environment Traditional bilateral and multilateral development programs rely on donor countries’ political will, putting funding at risk if priorities change. Recent experience is telling in this respect. An IMO revenue-raising mechanism ensures continuous, reliable funding for alternative technologies regardless of domestic political shifts in donor nations. Ultimately, this can create a more predictable investment environment. Something that the shipping industry, energy suppliers, and ports alike may value. Enhancing coordination Effective decarbonisation of shipping demands coherent, well-timed