European ports seek tougher EU ETS safeguards to protect shipping connectivity

The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) has backed proposed European Parliament amendments to strengthen protection against maritime traffic diversion under the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). In a statement on 29 October 2026, it urged lawmakers to prevent carbon-pricing rules from shifting transhipment activity outside Europe while preserving the scheme’s environmental objectives.

What safeguards are European ports proposing?

ESPO supports two complementary measures: expanding the neighbouring non-EU ports mechanism using a 300-nautical-mile criterion and port capacity, and introducing additional protection against transhipment diversion and the loss of direct ocean services.

Secretary General Isabelle Ryckbost said: “The two instruments must work together.”

The organisation opposes protecting only a selected list of European transhipment ports, arguing that this could distort competition within the single market. It favours straightforward rules that apply consistently across ports.

ESPO also wants decisions on extending the ETS to smaller vessels deferred pending a fuller impact assessment. It cites concerns that higher maritime costs could encourage freight to shift towards road transport. These recommendations remain part of the legislative debate, rather than adopted changes.

How do existing maritime carbon-pricing rules work?

The maritime ETS applies irrespective of a ship’s flag. Its geographical scope covers all emissions from voyages between EU ports and emissions within those ports, alongside half the emissions from voyages between EU and non-EU ports.

This difference makes the definition of a port call important when determining which voyage emissions fall within the system.

Existing safeguards exclude stops at designated neighbouring container transhipment ports when establishing the beginning or end of a covered voyage. The intention is to prevent operators from reducing their obligations through intermediate calls just outside the EU.

Under the established criteria, a qualifying neighbouring port must be outside the EU, less than 300 nautical miles from an EU port, and have transhipment accounting for more than 65% of container traffic. Ports in countries applying equivalent carbon-pricing measures are excluded from that designation.

The Commission’s original implementing regulation identified Tanger Med in Morocco and East Port Said in Egypt.

Why does direct shipping connectivity matter?

The European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services, known as CLECAT, supported stronger safeguards in a separate statement on 30 October.

It cautioned that aggregate cargo volumes alone cannot reveal the full effects of changing shipping networks. A port could retain throughput while losing direct services and becoming more dependent on feeder connections.

According to CLECAT, such changes can mean longer transit times, lower reliability and higher logistics costs for importers and exporters. It recommends monitoring direct calls, service frequency, transhipment patterns and total logistics expenditure.

The association identifies Mediterranean ports, island member states and peripheral regions as particularly exposed to competition from nearby non-EU gateways.

How could ETS revenue support port decarbonisation?

The debate also concerns funding for the infrastructure needed to reduce maritime emissions.

In conclusions adopted on 8 June 2026, the Council of the EU encouraged using ETS revenues across the maritime value chain, including shipping, port infrastructure and alternative fuels.

Member states called for support for shore power, electrification, smart grids and stronger grid connections, with investment aligned to actual demand. They also recognised concerns about traffic diversion, carbon leakage and the relocation of investment.

The Council invited the Commission to continue monitoring these effects and propose targeted corrections where necessary, while maintaining European climate ambitions. This places port competitiveness and emissions reduction within the same policy discussion, with both dependent on how the revised framework is implemented.