Port strategy: "Interesting guidelines, and warning on the ETS" (Cédric Virciglio)

The EU's Maritime Ports Strategy was announced on 04/03/2026: what are the main points you have taken from it?

The most interesting announcement in this strategy, which we welcome, is that of the acceleration of permit procedures, a cousin of that announced in the law on Industrial Acceleration. By setting up dedicated clusters and allowing a maximum of 18 months to process applications for environmental permits, this measure will speed up the development of port areas, which are vectors for industrialisation and decarbonisation.

This strategy is not binding, but it does set out a positive direction for European ports.

Secondly, as we anticipated, this strategy focuses on the long-term competitiveness of ports, on economic and geopolitical security, and on the resilience and sustainability of ports in the EU. It recognises the importance of ports in the European economic system, and its 28 pages develop interesting approaches on many subjects. The strategy is not binding, but it sets a positive direction for European ports.

Security and cybersecurity issues are present, which is not surprising given the current tensions, and ports are currently at the centre of attention. While we are currently seeing a lot of military attention focused on ports, particularly in relation to drone flights and military mobility, the other major issues - competitiveness, resilience and sustainability - are already within the scope of European legislation. And we weren't expecting any major revolutions from this strategy, but rather a fine-tuning.

As far as ports are concerned, the entry into force of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) and RefuelEU have already moved things forward, particularly as regards the electrification of ports. And there are still 197 Delegated Acts resulting from "Fit For 55" to be implemented in the Union and its Member States.

You also welcome the Commission's open-mindedness on the question of the maritime ETS , which ESPO and Haropa Port are calling for to be revised: what are the reasons for this?

We also need to take account of feedback from the field, as is the case with the maritime ETS, which will be implemented on 01/01/2024. We are well placed to warn of the possible pernicious effects of regulations, and we are seeing them today with the SEQE.

We are witnessing an evasion of traffic to neighbouring EU ports, in particular to the ports of Southampton, Felixstowe and London, in England, as well as to Istanbul: this means less revenue for the European ETS, and also more carbon. This is particularly true of Istanbul, where goods are transhipped onto lorries and brought to Europe by road, since ETS2 (road and building) has been postponed until 2028.

Similarly, short sea links between Spain and Italy have been shifted to the road, and once the sea (or rail, for that matter) loses market share, it is very difficult to regain it.

We call for UK ports to be granted 'neighbouring port' status

That's why we're calling for British ports to be granted 'neighbouring port' status, as is currently the case for Tangier Med and Port Said (Egypt), which are subject to the European ETS at a rate of 50%. These ports are located less than 300 nautical miles from the European coast, and have carried out more than 65% of container transhipments - the two conditions required to become 'neighbouring ports'.

If we were to change the 65% rule, we could include British ports in this category, and avoid these blatant carbon leaks. For the record, Morocco is currently investing €7.5 billion in Tanger Med: if we don't take action, we'll have decarbonised but empty ports in Europe.

Raffaele Fitto also called on the Member States to make an effort with regard to the ETS, and to actually allocate its revenues to decarbonisation operations: is this not the case today?

Not always, and we can applaud the efforts of France, which has earmarked part of its revenue for decarbonisation. But this can always change, and many countries are incorporating their ETS revenue (collected by the EU, which keeps 10% and then passes it on to the Member States) into their general budget.

This is also why organisations and players in the maritime world are calling for ETS revenue to be allocated to those who pay it, to support them in their transition. This is also a point of vigilance, because if the ETS is collected and then paid into the general budget of the Member States, it is indeed a tax, but not a lever for decarbonisation as it is often presented. On this subject as on others, we remain vigilant!

What other issues are you keeping a close eye on?

In addition to the Strategy, there are many other issues that impact on the port world: the revision of the Public Procurement and Concessions Directives, the implementation and effective scope of Foreign Direct Investment Screening, the implementation and possible relaxation of the MACF, to name but a few...

And, of course, we are closely monitoring the negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028-2034, the Union's next budget.

And what is your position in the MFF negotiations?

Under the 2021-2027 budget, transport has been relatively well off, notably through the European Interconnection Mechanism (EIM), which has worked well, as well as through the establishment of cross-border corridors, as part of the TEN-Ts. However, ports have only obtained 4% of the funds allocated under TEN-T.

It is above all the rail sector, as well as major works (North Seine Europe canal, Lyon-Turin tunnel), that have benefited from the largest appropriations. And this despite the fact that the costs involved in transforming and modernising ports are also substantial. In Le Havre, the electrification of the quays represents an investment of €250m, although to date there is no real economic model.

We will therefore be keeping a close eye on the budget allocated to ports in the next MFF, asking, for example, that funds be earmarked for the port sector, whether via the MIE or other funding programmes.

On the subject of decarbonising ports and maritime transport, what are the most effective approaches?

The electrification of quays is already a very efficient approach, since ships consume the most fuel when they are at low speed, and therefore at quayside, or during approach phases: when we eliminate those twelve to eighteen hours of heavy fuel oil consumption, and the associated GHG emissions (and fine micro-particles), decarbonisation is already a tangible reality.

LNG is now the benchmark alternative fuel for global orders.

It took a good ten years to adapt SST regulations and global practices, because it wasn't necessarily easy to switch from heavy fuel oil to LNG in an industry like shipping.

And while LNG is, of course, also a fossil fuel, it is also a transitional energy, less polluting than marine fuel oil (particularly in terms of fine particle emissions) but with a carbon footprint that is still too high if we want to achieve the targets set by the Paris Agreement or the Green Deal.

Finally, shipping companies and players are pursuing their commitment to cleaner energies: e-methanol, SMF (Sustainable Maritime Fuel) and ammonia are currently in the European spotlight at the start of the year.

There is still a long way to go, in terms of technology, safety and acceptability, but the will is there, and we can see that Chinese ports are now very advanced in terms of the environment and decarbonisation, and are driving the green corridors.

And, finally, are you confident in the decarbonisation trajectories of the port and maritime world?

We're obviously in a period of headwinds at the moment, and there's very little chance of a global agreement on NetZero, like the one proposed to the IMO in 2025, but it's precisely at times like these that we need to stay on course!

We can see the impact of climate change at the port of Le Havre

Today, we are seeing the impact of climate change at the port of Le Havre: there were gusts of 230 km/h during the storm at the beginning of January, and we have increased the height of our 'chatière' [une digue de 1800 mètres permettant aux navires fluviaux de se mettre au contact des navires hauturiers, en mer], compared with the start of the studies. P

n addition, we also have very dense fog in the morning in Le Havre, which used to be much rarer: in both cases, this prevents operations from running smoothly, and requires a great deal of adaptability.

But the companies, whether TiL, MSC or Hapag-Lloyd, via Hanseatic Global Terminal or CMA-CGM and GMP, are investing in large-scale infrastructures, with the ambition of adding capacity and decarbonising terminal operations, some of which are going 100% electric, currently within the Haropa Port perimeter, and this gives us visibility and good prospects for the years to come.

All the players in the maritime world are now investing in low-carbon growth, whether in ports or at sea, and this trend remains a fundamental one!