El European Union Emissions Trading System aims to speed up the shift of shipping companies toward cleaner technologies. The new obligation for maritime carriers to financially offset their greenhouse gas emissions began on January 1 and has become the central reason behind port protests in a dozen European countries, where stevedores have been called to take part.
1. Why does the maritime sector join the emissions trading market?
Since January 1, the maritime transport sector in Europe faces the requirement to financially compensate for its greenhouse gas emissions. The sector accounts for about 4% of continental emissions. Previously exempt, the European Union has brought shipping into the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the main mechanism for cutting emissions in Europe. This move mirrors actions already in place for aviation and for the most polluting activities such as refining, cement, steel, and glass production. Like in other sectors, shipping companies must purchase emission allowances corresponding to the amount of greenhouse gases they release. The system assigns a price to pollution and aims to accelerate the transition of maritime operators toward more sustainable practices and clean technologies.
The EU ETS represents the largest carbon market in the world.
2. How is the emissions trading market implemented in maritime transport?
The regulation covers all ships over 5,000 tons (bulk carriers, cruise ships, oil tankers, military vessels, and large yachts) and applies to 100% of CO₂ emissions on routes between ports within the EU and 50% on lines with EU entry or exit. Implementation is gradual. From January, companies must pay for 40% of CO₂ emissions; in 2025 it rises to 70%; by 2026 it reaches 100%. That same year, other pollutants such as methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxides (N₂O) will be included in the tally. The legislation provides exemptions until the end of 2030 for connections to islands with populations under 200,000 and for remote regions like the Canary Islands. It also includes a special incentive regime to support the adoption of renewable fuels of non-biological origin. Revenues from emission payments are reinvested in decarbonization projects for the maritime sector.
3. How does the measure affect ports?
The measure has spurred protests from the port and maritime logistics sector, which argues that its implementation will push ships coming from America and Asia to call at North African ports outside the EU to avoid higher costs. A vessel from Asia that typically transits the Suez Canal and stops in an Italian port or in Barcelona to continue to Rotterdam will, under EU ETS, pay 50% of emissions in Italy or Barcelona and 100% on the leg from there to its final destination. To avoid payments, it may instead lay over in Port Said (Egypt) or Tanger Med (Morocco) and then proceed to Rotterdam, paying only for the final leg. Port workers warn that route changes could lead to longer journeys with higher emissions and may shift port activity outside the EU, risking job losses in European facilities.
4. What impact has the measure had to date?
Data so far show limited impact from the emissions payment regime due to the Red Sea crisis altering routes in favor of Spanish ports. Trade volumes grew at Barcelona by about 5.7% and at Algeciras by nearly 10% in the first two months of the year. Shipping lines that previously relied on the Suez Canal are routing around Africa toward ports such as the Canary Islands, Valencia, Algeiras, and Portugal, reducing activity in interior Mediterranean hubs like Italian ports. European ports have united to urge a temporary halt until global adoption by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which is not likely before late 2025. The adaptation remains a work in progress as the industry awaits broader global alignment.
5. What could this mean for shipping lines and customers?
Several organizations agree that the major effects are felt at ports, with carriers passing some of the costs to customers. A study by Transport & Environment, a global group advocating for transport decarbonization, notes that carriers are benefiting from the measure by loading elevated surcharges. An analyst in Spain argues that southern European governments fear ETS will erode business because ships may avoid their ports, yet warns this should not be used to justify curbings of the system. The T&E study examined 565 trips on 20 vessels from Europe’s four largest lines: Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM, and Hapag-Lloyd. It estimates Maersk gains the most from surcharges, averaging around 60,000 euros per voyage, followed by MSC, Hapag-Lloyd, and CMA CGM. The costs of the ETS are small compared with the surcharges implemented in response to the Red Sea disruptions. Still, the rise in shipping costs has a limited impact on final goods prices. A logistics executive notes that the per-container cost remains modest and should not derail international trade, though it may affect transshipment volumes at some ports. If carriers pass costs through while complying with regulations, they are unlikely to alter their operations significantly, with past events showing that carriers sometimes use such moments to adjust pricing strategies in international trades.