The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) has reiterated its assist for an emissions buying and selling scheme (ETS) as instrument for greening the delivery sector, however expresses its critical concern about first indicators of carbon and enterprise leakage because of the restricted scope of the present laws.
For ESPO, the precept to think about calls to some transhipment ports neighbouring the EU as a “port of call” within the counting of the ETS expenses is barely a partial resolution to the issue. ESPO agrees with the identification of Tanger Med and East Port Said as main neighbouring transhipments ports. However, it won’t be sufficient to make sure that evasion can not happen, the group says.
While only some neighbouring ports are reaching the very excessive transhipment quantity thresholds put ahead within the EU laws (65%), many ports and terminals round Europe have and/or are build up transhipment capability. The European Commission ought to due to this fact not solely have a look at present volumes, but additionally take into account the transhipment capability within the totally different ports neighbouring the EU.
Moreover, beneath the present laws, even when the decision at a non-EU transhipment port is topic to the particular regime, it’s nonetheless extra beneficial for ships to name at a non-EU port than at an EU transhipment port. When ships name at an EU transhipment port, the final leg between the transhipment port and every other EU port is topic to ETS expenses for 100% of the journey. On the opposite hand, if the ships name at a non-EU transhipment port, solely 50% of the journey is accounted for.
“We see a real ramping up of investments in additional TEU capacity in ports and new terminals in neighbouring countries, including investments realised by major shipping lines in these ports, and we also hear about first rerouting movements outside Europe. This reinforces the idea that shipping lines, where relevant, are preparing their way out of the EU ETS maritime. We recognise the importance of the EU ETS Directive and supports its aim, but we continue to regret that this legislative framework disadvantages EU ports vis-à-vis non-EU ports, without the expected benefit in terms of emission reduction,” says Zeno D’Agostino, Chairman of ESPO.
For the maritime EU ETS to be a hit, the European Commission should ensure that the ETS implementation safeguards the competitiveness of European ports, and avoids carbon and enterprise leakage to ports neighbouring the EU, says ESPO. For Europe’s ports, monitoring ought to already happen forward of the applying date, as rerouting and evasion actions are already in preparation or taking place now. Moreover, the monitoring ought to occur constantly, not solely with a report each two years.
“One must realise, that once evasion is established, and trading routes have changed, it will be very difficult to reverse the negative developments,” says Isabelle Ryckbost, ESPO Secretary General.
While it’s troublesome to show a direct causal hyperlink between sure rerouting and developments of terminals outdoors the EU, the extent and depth of latest developments in non-EU ports strengthen the priority of many European affected ports on the potential opposed impact of the EU ETS with out the anticipated environmental profit. On high of dropping transhipment capability and the corresponding jobs, Europe dangers dropping oversight and management of the whole provide chain, says ESPO.
Given the present state of affairs and developments and the intense penalties of the implementation of this laws for the competitiveness and way forward for some European ports, ESPO hopes for an open, steady and constructive dialogue with the Commission permitting to map opposed impacts and sign evasion at a really early stage, in view of attaining an ETS that delivers the ambitions it has been designed for.
