Consistency between the Fit for 55 proposals

by admin September 30, 2022

September 30, 2022 244 views

Consistency between the Fit for 55 proposals

FEPORT has always been supportive of EU environmental initiatives and is definitely in favour of the EU Green Deal as well as the objectives of the Fit for 55 proposals.

Seaport terminal operators have engaged into the greening of their equipment some years ago and they have seen the benefits of their proactivity as emissions resulting from their operations are continuously decreasing.

But decarbonization of shipping remains a priority for port stakeholders as the bulk of the emissions come from ships and other modes of transport which connect ports to the hinterland.

Important challenges are ahead but the collective awareness about the necessity to join forces is also increasing. This is why FEPORT has decided to join a coalition gathering maritime and port associations calling for a consistent use of the future ETS revenues.

It is crucial that ETS revenues are used to support investments that will be necessary to enable the green transition of the maritime sector. The ETS fund must be dedicated to this objective.

In the port sector, there will be indeed a need to invest into green port equipment and refuelling and recharging infrastructure in a context where the competitive pressure from non-EU neighbouring countries, which do not apply emissions trading to the maritime sector, will be significant.

The transition towards decarbonisation will also require an important effort in terms of upskilling and reskilling of the port workforce. Hence, the importance of the earmarking of the EU ETS revenues and their mobilization to address the needs in the maritime and port sectors.

But consistency is also needed between the Fit for 55 proposals. Industry needs homogeneity, clarity, certainty, and a harmonized application of the rules.

FEPORT calls for vigilance with respect to the provisions of some proposals like AFIR and FuelEU as they are lacking consistency, and this can have counterproductive effects.

ESPO and FEPORT have proposed an approach which focuses on OPS deployment per location (such as berths or terminals) in the port, rather than per port. This would ensure that OPS, also known as shore-side electricity, is deployed where it makes the most environmental and economic sense, whilst maintaining the established roles and responsibilities of the various port stakeholders.[1]

To avoid a waste of limited time and public resources, the legal framework on the European level should ensure that OPS is deployed at locations in the port where each installation will deliver maximal emissions reductions per Euro invested.

To optimise the use of OPS as a solution to emissions at berth, ESPO and FEPORT therefore call for the following:

A requirement for ships to use OPS when it is available in ports in FuelEU Maritime
Prioritising OPS deployment in port locations where it reduces emissions the most in AFIR

This approach does not assign new responsibilities to stakeholders in the port and would respect the diverse governance models of European ports.

The compromise amendments in FuelEU referring to the role port stakeholders are not in line with the AFIR ones, and this is unfortunate.

However, FEPORT looks forward to the outcome of the ongoing trialogues and the joint work of the three institutions to preserve consistency between the Fit for 55 proposals.