IMO MEPC 85 is a pivotal environmental-policy checkpoint for the maritime sector. The 85th session of the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee is scheduled for 30 November to 3 December 2026. The timing matters for ports because decisions and negotiations around international shipping’s climate measures, fuel pathways, emissions data and environmental performance can rapidly translate into demands at the ship-port interface.
An outlook is not a forecast of adopted rules. Formal IMO outcomes depend on member-state discussions, submitted documents and the decisions taken at the session. Ports should therefore avoid committing capital on the assumption that a particular provision is certain. But waiting for every detail would also be a mistake. MEPC 85 is a strong signal for ports to examine their readiness: can they support lower-emission operations, manage new fuel and energy demands, exchange reliable data, and offer a predictable interface to ships responding to tighter environmental expectations?
What MEPC does and why ports should follow it
The Marine Environment Protection Committee addresses environmental issues under the IMO’s remit, including ship-source pollution, air pollution, greenhouse-gas emissions, ballast water, marine litter, biofouling, underwater noise and pollution preparedness and response. Its decisions may lead to treaty amendments, guidelines, work programmes or further technical development.
Ports are not passive observers. International measures aimed at ships often need practical port-side conditions to succeed. A fuel standard can affect bunkering demand and verification questions. A greenhouse-gas price can alter the economics of fuels, speeds and routes. Energy-efficiency measures can increase interest in port-call optimisation and just-in-time arrival. Underwater-noise work can generate expectations for voluntary port incentives or operational measures. New regional emission-control requirements can affect fuel availability, enforcement interfaces and customer communication.
The useful mindset is not, “Which regulation will make ports responsible?” It is, “Which operational capabilities will make our port a reliable partner as shipping changes?” That approach turns regulatory uncertainty into a structured readiness programme.
The central climate signal: the IMO Net-Zero Framework process
The IMO’s 2023 GHG Strategy sets an ambition for international shipping to reach net-zero GHG emissions by or around 2050, taking into account different national circumstances. The proposed IMO Net-Zero Framework is intended to combine a global marine fuel standard with a greenhouse-gas pricing mechanism. The formal process has been evolving, and IMO information notes that adoption discussions were adjourned in 2025 and are expected to resume in 2026 following MEPC 85, subject to the session’s discussions.
For ports, the immediate implication is preparation for a more data-intensive, fuel-differentiated shipping market. Even before a final global rule takes effect, shipowners and charterers will compare port calls according to access to lower-GHG fuels, electricity, operational efficiency, incentives, safety competence and the credibility of local emissions information.
Ports should map the fuel and energy pathways that are realistic for their geography and traffic. There is no universal winner. Candidate pathways may include renewable electricity for shore power and terminal equipment, sustainable biofuels, methanol, ammonia, hydrogen-derived fuels, battery charging or other energy carriers. The right decision depends on vessel segments, local supply, lifecycle emissions, safety, land, grid capacity, water, commercial partners and regulation. A portfolio view is usually safer than committing early to a single headline fuel.
Infrastructure readiness: build options, not stranded assets
MEPC 85 will not eliminate uncertainty over future fuel demand. Ports should respond by building options and decision gates. Start with a demand map: which vessel categories call today, which may change first, where are they berthed, what energy use occurs at berth, and what future services are being requested by customers? Match this with a site map of electrical capacity, potential bunkering locations, safety separation distances, access routes, emergency response capability, water needs and nearby land uses.
For shore power, evaluate ship compatibility, grid capacity, renewable electricity availability, pricing, utilisation and the berth sequence. Shore power can provide significant local air-quality and climate benefits when the electricity mix, usage pattern and vessel interface support it, but it is not a plug-and-play investment. Ports need engagement with grid operators, ship operators, terminal concessionaires, regulators and city authorities.
For alternative fuels, focus first on safety and scalable learning. A port may begin with a hazard identification, emergency-services familiarisation, training needs assessment, regulatory map and controlled pilot operations before developing large infrastructure. Define who owns the fuel, who is responsible at the transfer interface, how compatibility is verified, what happens in an emergency, and how operations are coordinated with normal cargo and passenger activity. Safety credibility will be a market differentiator.
Port calls, data and just-in-time operations will matter more
The IMO GHG Strategy recognises support for port-call optimisation and just-in-time arrival as a means to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. Just in time means a ship sails at the lowest practicable fuel-consuming profile while still arriving in time for its service window. It relies on timely, trusted communication among ship, agent, port, terminal, pilots, tugs and other service providers.
For ports, this is one of the most actionable areas regardless of the exact MEPC 85 outcome. Improve the quality and predictability of berth, pilotage, navigational and service information. Agree shared arrival milestones. Reduce manual re-entry and conflicting data sources. Establish clear rules for updating an ETA or berth window. Test the process with real calls and measure waiting time, schedule variance and fuel-saving opportunity.
Digital optimisation must be cyber-resilient. The more operations rely on shared data, the more essential it becomes to validate data provenance, control access, protect interfaces, keep backups and maintain safe manual procedures. Port call optimisation that collapses during a cyber incident is not resilience; it is a new dependency. Build the cyber controls and fallback arrangements into the programme from the beginning.
Underwater radiated noise: an important MEPC 85 environmental item
Underwater radiated noise is another issue that ports should watch closely. The IMO’s revised guidelines for the reduction of underwater radiated noise from shipping are voluntary and are supported by an Experience Building Phase. IMO information indicates that this phase runs until MEPC 85 in 2026, with consideration of a possible extension to continue developing best practices.
Ports do not need to wait for a mandatory requirement to act. They can assess sensitive areas, work with vessel operators and pilots on safe operational measures, strengthen port-call predictability, consider credible environmental incentives and support monitoring where it will guide decisions. Measures such as propeller and hull maintenance, reduction of unnecessary high-speed operation, and improved arrival planning may provide biodiversity and efficiency co-benefits, depending on the vessel and location.
The key is to be evidence-led. Do not create a generic speed rule without understanding navigation, traffic, weather, species sensitivity and operational impact. Develop local programmes with scientists, users and regulators, make safety exemptions clear and measure results. This is the kind of practical experience that can inform future international best practice.
Other environmental issues to keep on the port radar
MEPC agendas cover a wide range of matters, and ports should maintain a broad scanning function. Ballast water management affects service and compliance interfaces. Biofouling management can influence hull performance, invasive-species risk and underwater noise. Air pollution and emission-control areas affect fuel choices, enforcement questions and customer support. Pollution preparedness and response remains fundamental, particularly as new fuels and energy carriers enter port environments.
The North-East Atlantic emission-control area process is an example of why regional and IMO developments should be tracked together. When a regional requirement changes, a port may need to update information for operators, assess fuel-service implications, coordinate with authorities and ensure that its own equipment and emergency readiness remain aligned. The same applies to changing expectations on waste reception facilities, cargo residues, scrubber washwater or other MARPOL-related issues.
Create a simple regulatory watch process. Assign ownership, use authoritative sources, distinguish adopted measures from proposals, record the potential ship-port impact, and set a decision date for action. This prevents both overreaction to rumours and late response to confirmed changes.
Finance and incentives: prepare the business case now
Environmental transition will be shaped by commercial incentives as well as rules. A global GHG pricing mechanism, if ultimately adopted, could influence fuel economics and the value of verified emissions reductions. Regional programmes, green corridors, lender expectations and customer procurement requirements are already encouraging ports to demonstrate credible transition plans.
Ports should be ready to explain their investment logic. Build a baseline for port-related energy use, emissions, vessel services, cargo flows and relevant environmental impacts. Identify priority projects, their dependencies, expected utilisation, safety requirements and potential co-benefits. Compare a no-action case with phased options. Where a project depends on external grid reinforcement or fuel supply, make the dependency explicit instead of presenting an uncosted aspiration.
Incentives can support early action. Differentiated port dues, support for verified low-emission vessels, transparent shore-power tariffs, land arrangements for clean-energy projects or service-priority schemes may be considered where permitted and financially sustainable. Incentives should be clear, non-discriminatory, measurable and reviewed over time. A complex scheme that users cannot understand or staff cannot administer will not accelerate transition.
A 120-day MEPC 85 readiness plan for ports
Ports can use the period before MEPC 85 to organise action around seven workstreams.
First, establish an IMO and regional regulatory watch led by a named executive sponsor. Second, update the ship-port emissions and energy baseline. Third, map current and prospective fuel, shore-power and charging demand by vessel segment. Fourth, conduct a safety and emergency-readiness gap assessment for relevant energy pathways. Fifth, launch or strengthen one port-call optimisation pilot using trusted data and clear fallback procedures. Sixth, assess biodiversity priorities, including underwater noise where locally relevant. Seventh, prepare a board-ready investment roadmap with decision gates, partners, funding needs and risk owners.
The output should not be a generic sustainability presentation. It should be a practical readiness file: what the port knows, what it does not yet know, what actions are under way, which decisions are due, and what external support is needed. That is the kind of evidence customers, regulators, lenders and city partners can use.
What not to do before MEPC 85
Avoid three common errors. Do not present a proposal as an adopted IMO rule. Do not select a future fuel solely because it is currently fashionable. And do not treat decarbonisation infrastructure as separate from safety, digital resilience, land use, workforce skills and city relations.
The transition will be iterative. Ports that maintain optionality, learn through controlled pilots, use authoritative information and collaborate across the ship-port interface will be better placed than those that either wait passively or rush into stranded assets.
MEPC 85 is a readiness test for the ship-port interface
The most important outcome for ports may not be one paragraph of regulatory text. It may be the clarity the session brings to the direction of travel: cleaner fuels, stronger emissions accountability, more efficient port calls, better environmental data and heightened expectations for credible implementation.
Ports should approach MEPC 85 with a calm but active mindset. Track the formal decisions. Prepare for the operational implications. Invest in capabilities that are valuable across multiple scenarios. In doing so, ports will not merely react to the next IMO milestone; they will help make the maritime transition safe, practical and investable.
Sources and further reading
– IMO meeting schedule and MEPC 85 dates
– IMO work to cut GHG emissions from ships
– 2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships