From January 1, 2026, the logistics sector faces a decisive change in the cost structure of maritime transport. The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which began in the maritime sector in 2024, has reached its final phase of implementation.
In this article, we analyze what this jump from 70% to 100% coverage means, how shipping companies are managing it, and where the revenue from these EU fees actually goes.
The end of the transition phase: Why are costs rising now?
EU regulations designed a phased rollout so that the sector could adapt. However, that “grace” period has now ended.
| YEAR | EMISSIONS COVERAGE | IMPACT ON THE SURCHARGE |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 40% of emissions | Initial introduction of the surcharge |
| 2025 | 70% of emissions | Moderate increase |
| 2026 | 100% of emissions | Total impact of carbon costs |
Starting this year, shipping companies must purchase emission allowances (EUA) for each ton of CO2 (and now also methane and nitrous oxide) emitted on:
- 100% of routes between EU ports.
- 50% of routes connecting an EU port with a port outside the EU.
- 100% of emissions during stays in European ports.
The response of shipping companies
Shipping companies have been clear from the outset: the EU ETS is an external operating cost that is passed on in full to the shipper through the ETS Surcharge.
With the arrival of 100% coverage, industry giants have already warned of increases that could exceed 40% compared to 2025 levels. Depending on the route and type of equipment (dry or reefer), this surcharge can now represent between 6% and 12% of the total freight cost, making it an unavoidable item in any quote.
Note to importers/exporters: This surcharge is not fixed; it fluctuates monthly according to the market price of emission allowances on the EU carbon market.
What does the European Union use this money for?
It is common to wonder whether these fees are simply “just another tax.” However, European regulations stipulate that the revenue generated by the ETS must be reinvested in the energy transition itself:
- Innovation Fund: Much of the revenue is used to finance low-carbon technology projects, such as the development of ships powered by hydrogen or green methanol.
- Decarbonization of the maritime sector: The aim is to subsidize the price difference between traditional fossil fuels and new sustainable fuels, which are still much more expensive.
- Port infrastructure: Improving ports to allow ships to connect to the power grid while docked (cold ironing), reducing local pollution.
4. Negative aspects
Although the objective is environmental (to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030), the economic impact on Europe is ambivalent:
- Inflation in the supply chain: As the transport of raw materials and end products becomes more expensive, there is upward pressure on consumer prices within Europe.
- Risk of route diversion: There is concern that some ships may prefer to call at ports close to the EU (such as Tangier Med, ports in the United Kingdom, or Alexandria in Egypt, among others) to avoid paying for the long leg of the journey, which the EU is trying to combat with anti-circumvention measures.
Alternatives and solutions proposed by Spain
Given this scenario, Spanish ports and the State Ports Association propose several solutions to balance the scales:
1. Application of regulations at the global level (IMO)
The main request is that the carbon tax should not only apply to the EU, but should be implemented by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) worldwide. This would ensure that all ports around the world compete under the same rules (level playing field).
2. Modification of the definition of “Port of Call”
They propose changing the law so that technical stops at ports near the EU (such as Tangier Med or East Port Said) do not serve to reduce ETS payments. The idea is that if a ship comes from China, the entire journey to Europe should be counted, even if it stops for one hour in Morocco.
3. The “ETS Observatory”
Spain has led the creation of a European Observatory to monitor ship diversion in real time. If data shows that cargo is being diverted to non-EU ports, the European Commission is legally obliged to review and amend the directive.
4. Rebates and Efficiency
Algeciras is committed to offsetting the additional cost of carbon with low port fees and maximum operational efficiency. In addition, they are investing more than €80 million in OPS (Onshore Power Supply) systems so that ships can connect to the power grid and not emit CO2 while in port, thus reducing the fee they have to pay.
Reflection by Gerardo Landaluce: “You cannot defend the environment by creating nearby CO2 tax havens; all you achieve is to export pollution and companies outside Europe.”
Conclusion
The move to a 100% ETS surcharge in 2026 marks the beginning of a new era in international logistics. It is no longer a marginal charge, but a structural component of transport costs.
At BestWay Cargo, we work to offer you maximum transparency in your logistics costs and help you optimize your routes to mitigate the impact of these new environmental regulations.
*This article has been automatically translated from its Spanish version.
