In a joint statement published on 22 June, the European Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) and Airlines for Europe (A4E) urged the Commission to require member states to earmark part of their ETS revenues for shipping and aviation decarbonisation.
Both associations also called on governments to supplement existing EU funding mechanisms with national ETS revenues.
ECSA and A4E said shipping and aviation together generate more than €11bn annually in ETS revenues. Those funds, they argue, should be used to help bridge the cost difference between conventional fuels and lower-carbon alternatives, which remain significantly more expensive.
For shipping, ECSA pointed to a gap between investment in alternative-fuel vessels and fuel production capacity in Europe. European shipowners account for 44% of the global orderbook for vessels designed to operate on sustainable fuels.
Sotiris Raptis, Secretary General of ECSA, said: “European shipowners are leading global investments in sustainable fuel-powered vessels, with 44% of the global orderbook, but Europe’s fuel availability is not keeping pace.
‘Asia leads with 74% of fuel production projects, while Europe accounts for just 10%. Less than 5% of European sustainable fuel production is currently intended for maritime use.’
Raptis said revenues generated from shipping’s inclusion in the ETS should be used to support fuel availability and clean technology projects:
‘Shipping contributes around EUR 9 billion to the EU ETS. This money should be used at EU and national level to bridge the price gap and support sustainable fuel availability and clean tech projects. This is key for the energy transition of the sector and for the energy security of the continent.’
A4E said European airlines contributed €2.3bn to the ETS in 2024 and estimated that annual contributions will exceed €5bn by 2030.
Ourania Georgoutsakou, Managing Director of A4E, commented: ‘The 20 million SAF allowances on the table fall short of what 2030 will demand, and without clarity on post-2030 availability, the investment case simply does not stack up.’
