The latest installment from Maritime CEO’s guide to shipping in the Year of the Horse. Following last October’s dramatic failure to get the Net-Zero Framework (NZF) over the line, and the current US administration’s disdain for many branches of the United Nations, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) finds itself under red-hot pressure heading into the Year of the Fire Horse, its legitimacy as shipping’s global regulator has arguably faced no greater strain in its 78-year history. Not for nothing, Arsenio Dominguez, the genial, hard working Panamanian leading the UN body, stressed the importance of “getting things done” in 2026 in his New Year’s message. Dominguez vowed 2026 would be a “year of implementation; moving from plans to concrete actions and measurable progress”. But just how much can he cajole out of member states in the coming months? Essential and irreplaceable Costas Delaportas, president and CEO of Greek owner DryDel Shipping, is adamant that the IMO is still the top global regulator, because it’s the only body that can set truly worldwide rules for international shipping. However, like everyone polled for this report, he concedes the London body is “under pressure”. “Regional regimes such as EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime are already shaping behaviour, and if IMO implementation is slow or unclear, the industry ends up with a patchwork of overlapping rules,” he says, arguing that the IMO’s leadership will be judged on speed and realistic execution, not announcements. Alex Karydis, a director at German shipowner Hanse Bereederung, says the IMO is essential and irreplaceable, albeit under pressure. “Regional initiatives are filling perceived gaps, sometimes at the expense of global consistency and progress,” he says. “The challenge for the IMO is to reassert relevance through clarity, enforceability, and realistic transition pathways. Fragmentation increases if confidence in global regulation weakens.” “The IMO provides a platform for collaboration and open discussions for the improvement of the maritime industry,” maintains Captain John Lloyd, CEO at the Nautical Institute. Quite so, agrees Peter Hult, CEO at VIKAND, a maritime medical specialist. “Regulations should not only set minimum standards but also encourage operators to invest meaningfully in their people,” he advises. What matters is how rules translate into operational behaviour Arun Sharma, executive chairman of the Indian Register of Shipping, describes the IMO as the “cornerstone” of the global maritime regulatory framework. Its effectiveness, he argues, will increasingly depend on timely rule development, clear implementation guidance, and consistency in application, particularly as new technologies, fuels and operational models are introduced across the industry. Henrik Jensen, CEO of crewing specialist Danica, sees the IMO as remaining very much “critical” to the industry.“Shipping is unique in its level of global standardisation, and the IMO has been instrumental in making international trade possible. It is essential that the rest of the world continues to support and strengthen the IMO’s role,” he urges. Regulator vs lobbyist Of all those surveyed for this report, the sharpest criticism for the UN body came out of Limassol and the office of Mark O’Neil, the CEO of Columbia Group. The failure to get the NZF voted through, he maintains, stemmed not from its failure as a global regulator but from what O’Neil describes as the IMO’s “misconceived and so