ETS for Maritime should not become ETS against EU ports
The picture is part of an academic article that can be consulted via this link:https://lnkd.in/eBudSnei
Between 14-17 October, IMO Member States met in the Marine Environment Protection (MEPC) Committee to formally adopt the IMO Net-Zero Framework that was already agreed upon in April this year.
International shipping associations vocally advocated for the agreement as a means to achieve a unified global framework rather than a patchwork of regional measures, while citizens and NGOs had put up their hopes for a text that would finally include clear and ambitious decarbonisation targets for international maritime transport, a hard-to-abate sector which up to now has remained largely underregulated. Port stakeholders were also looking forward to an international solution, as measures that apply in the EU only risk harming the competitiveness of European operators.
Unprecedented diplomatic pressure unfortunately led to the framework’s rejection. The decision on the Net-Zero Framework is, according to official statements, only postponed as the adjourned MEPC session will reconvene in October 2026. Nevertheless, the current political situation casts doubt on the international community’s capacity to agree on impactful decarbonisation measures for shipping in th e short- to medium-term.
At the same pace as confidence in an international solution is eroding, EU port operators’ concerns regarding their competitive position vis-a-vis third country competitors are on the rise.
Fit for 55 legislation such as Fuel EU and ETS Maritime imposes costs on shipping companies when they call at ports in the EU which can be avoided by redesigning their rotations to the benefit of alternative third country ports in Europe’s proximity.
It is welcome that ETS and FuelEU Regulations require the Commission to monitor these risks of carbon and business leakage, and, most importantly, propose measures if evasive behaviour is indeed established.
Nonetheless, even though ETS Maritime already entered its second year of phase-in while an international solution has never appeared further on the horizon, the Commission has still not provided clarity on the mitigation measures it plans to take in case our ports lose cargo to non-EU competitors. This leads to concerns in our industry as the sector knows that once volumes are lost it is very difficult to recover them.
In this context EU MEPs have begged the question whether the use of EU funds to the benefit of third country ports is not harming EU ports’ competitiveness.
FEPORT shares the concerns and recommends that the EU steps up its game when it comes to climate diplomacy, and leverages EU funds to convince third countries of adopting an Emission Trading System for shipping in their jurisdiction. In other words, EU financial support should be conditional on the adoption of similar climate policies. In particular, funds stemming from the Global Gateway Green Shipping Corridors initiative (GGGSC) should not be granted to non-EU competitors that lack a credible GHG pricing mechanism for maritime.
Under these circumstances, it becomes increasingly urgent for the European Union to equip its port sector with the means to withstand mounting competitive pressures. The absence of a level international playing field, coupled with the growing cost burden of EU-only climate measures, is eroding the capacity of European terminals to maintain their investment pace and environmental ambitions.
The introduction of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) for maritime transport has further accentuated this challenge, as costs applied exclusively within the Union risk undermining the competitiveness of European ports compared to neighbouring hubs. This is why the EU needs to establish a dedicated State aid framework for ports; one that recognises these asymmetries and provides the tools to mitigate their impact.
Unlike other transport modes, maritime ports still lack a coherent EU-level framework defining eligible investments and aid categories. To close this gap, existing instruments, most notably the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER), must evolve to encompass port superstructures and other critical assets that enable terminals to decarbonise, digitalise, and remain competitive.
By extending State aid eligibility to areas such as green cargo-handling equipment, onshore power systems, cybersecurity infrastructure, and dual-use facilities, the EU would empower Member States to provide swift, transparent, and proportionate support. Such a framework would not only offset the competitive imbalance created by ETS Maritime but also ensure that ports can continue contributing to the Union’s strategic objectives in transport, climate, and security policy.
In addition, FEPORT recommends revising the EU ETS State aid Guidelines to allow for support to terminal operators in case they are faced with carbon leakage as a consequence of ETS Maritime. Revisiting the EU State aid framework for our sector is crucial, not only to compensate for the impacts of ETS but also to support our industry to deliver (among others) on the energy transition, digitalisation and growing military mobility needs. FEPORT considers that the objectives of ETS for Maritime remain important as a means to reduce emissions in the EU and beyond. However, ETS for Maritime should not become ETS against EU ports.
News
ENISA Threat Landscape 2025 highlights cyber risks for transport and ports – Lisbon
European Ports Forum discusses forthcoming EU Ports Strategy – Brussels
FEPORT contributes to the Call for Evidence on the revision of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) – Brussels
Schengen Entry/Exit System (EES) enters into force – Brussels/Strasbourg
European Parliament debates report on Military Mobility – Brussels
Spanish MEP submits questions on ETS Maritime regarding funding and impacts on EU ports’ competitiveness
European Parliament Conference on “Ports at the heart of the European energy transition” – Brussels
FEPORT Participates to GreenPort Congress – Malta
IMO indefinitely postpones adoption of Net-Zero Framework – London
Combined Transport Directive Amendment Withdrawal
EP Plenary approves Microplastics Regulation – Brussels
Commission presents 2026 Work Programme: “Europe’s Independence Moment”- Brussels
Sectoral Social Dialogue for Ports Meeting – Brussels
Members' news
Hutchison Ports BEST Strengthens Rail Multimodality with Cidacos – Barcelona / La Rioja
PSA Antwerp Deploys Digital-Twin tools for Berth and Yard Planning – Antwerp
DP World Antwerp Gateway Celebrates its 20th Anniversary – Antwerp
