Could EU Climate Rules Drive Container Traffic to Rival Ports Outside Europe?

FTZ News: A study prepared for the European Parliament’s transport committee finds that container transhipment activity could shift from EU ports to non-EU hubs, particularly in the Mediterranean, but says current evidence does not show systematic relocation.


According to the report by MemEx, CE Delft and CERTH, the risk is credible because of the cost differential created by the EU Emissions Trading System and FuelEU Maritime rules, yet the Commission’s first monitoring exercise identified no generalised diversion of traffic in the initial period examined.

The 183-page analysis, published as PE 783.530, treats competitiveness as more than cargo volumes. It lists regulatory asymmetry with third-country ports, permitting delays, energy and grid constraints, and access to state aid and funding as structural factors that can affect where carriers place transhipment calls. Mediterranean ports are identified as the most exposed because several non-EU facilities, including Tanger Med and East Port Said, sit close to EU hubs and on major east-west routes. Baltic and northern ports appear less vulnerable on geographical grounds, though the study notes that UK calls can still alter the distance subject to ETS obligations on some services.

Ex-ante modelling cited in the report has long suggested that relocation becomes cost-effective at carbon prices well below recent EUA levels. Industry groups have made the same point, arguing that the existing designation of certain neighbouring ports as excluded “ports of call” does not close all avoidance routes. The study itself, however, treats the observed data as inconclusive. It records stakeholder concern and isolated service changes but stops short of concluding that a broad relocation is under way. It also describes the Commission’s EU Ports Strategy as too high-level on the monitoring arrangements needed to track such shifts.

The authors recommend that the Commission strengthen the evidence base for assessing business leakage linked to the ETS and FuelEU Maritime, including a stakeholder-supported methodology that distinguishes genuine network redesign from regulatory arbitrage. They note that the strategy is broadly aligned with the evidence on other issues—safety, energy transition, digital systems and hinterland connectivity—but that delivery will determine whether the competitive position of EU ports is protected as decarbonisation costs rise. The study does not quantify current leakage volumes or project future losses under different carbon-price scenarios.