Why retraction of Maritime Transport from the EU ETS seems Improbable

Executive Summary Maritime transport entered the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) on 1 January 2024. This was not a provisional step but a structural integration tied to the European Union’s binding climate trajectory and the Fit‑for‑55 legislative package. Even if the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopts a global market‑based measure (MBM) and a fuel GHG‑intensity standard for international shipping, the EU’s design choices point unmistakably to co‑existence rather than withdrawal. The ETS revision embeds a review clause, to safeguard environmental integrity and avoid “significant double burden”, but no sunset clause that would automatically remove maritime from scope (Directive 2003/87/EC, consolidated 1 March 2024). The Commission also cannot “flip a switch”, any material change to ETS coverage requires a full legislative revision under the ordinary legislative procedure, with Parliament and Council scrutiny. From a system perspective, maritime ETS is the price signal pillar in a deliberate policy trident: (i) EU ETS (price), (ii) EU MRV (measurement), and (iii) FuelEU Maritime (performance standard on the well‑to‑wake (WtW) GHG intensity of onboard energy). The EU has simultaneously implemented an administering‑authority regime for shipping companies and anti‑evasion rules via a list of neighbouring container transhipment ports to limit avoidance by hub‑shifts (Implementing Regulations (EU) 2023/2599 and 2023/2297). Financially, shipping receives no free allocation, so every tonne in scope represents auction demand. With approximately 72 Mt CO₂ reported within ETS maritime scope in 2024 and a phase‑in to 100% coverage in 2026, withdrawing maritime would remove a large block of demand from the carbon market, risking lower EUA prices and reducing auction revenues that feed Member State budgets and EU‑level instruments (EEA, 2024; European Commission, 2025a; Reuters, 2025a). Precedent also matters. In aviation, the EU maintained ETS for intra‑EEA flights while implementing CORSIA for extra‑EEA routes (Directive (EU) 2023/958). A similar coexistence with crediting model is the most plausible for shipping: ETS remains for intra‑EEA voyages (and 50% of extra‑EEA legs), while an IMO MBM may be credited to avoid double charging for the same leg, without compromising the EU’s higher ambition. Bottom line: Given legal anchors, market architecture, enforcement design and fiscal linkages, the Commission has strong incentives not to retract shipping from the EU ETS, even after IMO adoption, opting instead for calibrated coherence between regimes.