TRAN rapporteur calls for postponement of extending emissions rules to small vessels and for tailored rules for the offshore sector

The TRAN debate concerns how the EU measures vessel emissions before extending obligations to new categories of maritime operators.




Isabelle Le Callennec, the rapporteur of the European Parliament’s Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) for the file on maritime emissions monitoring, proposes simplifying the MRV system and opposes the premature extension of obligations to vessels below 5,000 gross tonnage and to certain offshore activities before measurement systems are adapted. The European Commission argues that its proposal limits the extension to the categories of small vessels with the highest emissions and warns that postponing or excluding offshore activities would delay these sectors’ contribution to the EU’s climate objectives.

In briefMRV is the European system for monitoring, reporting and verifying vessel emissions. It must be distinguished from the actual obligation to purchase and surrender ETS allowances.Le Callennec supports a simpler system that is more coherent with FuelEU Maritime and opposes the automatic extension of MRV to vessels below 5,000 gross tonnage without a full impact assessment.For offshore activities, the rapporteur considers that current monitoring does not sufficiently reflect their specific operating patterns and proposes that their inclusion in the ETS should await appropriate rules.The Commission argues that it has selected only the types of small vessels with high emissions for the extension and warns against the general exclusion or postponement of the offshore sector.TRAN did not vote on the draft opinion at its meeting on 5 October. Amendments were due by 6 October at 12:00, after which compromise negotiations would begin.The file concerns the European MRV system, the mechanism through which emissions generated by maritime transport are monitored, reported and verified. This stage is essential for the functioning of maritime climate policy, because authorities need to know how much a vessel emits and under what conditions before calculating obligations linked to other instruments, including the ETS. For this reason, emissions monitoring and the actual payment for carbon allowances must not be treated as the same thing.Le Callennec builds her draft around simplification. She supports creating a more unified framework between MRV, the ETS and FuelEU Maritime, so that operators are not required to provide the same information through parallel systems or bear administrative costs that can be eliminated without reducing data quality. From her perspective, simplification must deliver a genuine reduction in the burden on companies, not merely a formal reorganisation of the same requirements.A second principle is proportionality. The rapporteur does not support the immediate extension of MRV obligations to vessels below 5,000 gross tonnage before a full assessment of the effects on operators has been carried out. She calls for an analysis of the costs for small and medium-sized enterprises, companies operating regional services and maritime segments in which a new administrative obligation could have a disproportionate impact compared with the emissions covered.This argument does not imply the definitive removal of smaller vessels from European climate policy. The dispute concerns the timing and criteria for the extension. Le Callennec calls on the institutions first to understand the effects on operators and regional routes and to avoid situations in which additional costs could cause transport to shift to other modes or create disadvantages for certain maritime services.The European Commission has a more favourable position on the extension. The representative of DG CLIMA told TRAN that the Commission’s proposal does not bring all vessels below the current threshold into the system, instead selecting the types of vessels in this category that generate the highest emissions. The executive considers this selection a compromise between environmental effectiveness and avoiding a disproportionate administrative burden.From the Commission’s perspective, vessel size cannot be the sole argument for exclusion. Economic sectors must gradually reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, and smaller categories of vessels that make a significant contribution to emissions should not remain outside the system merely because they fall below the traditional threshold of 5,000 gross tonnes.The most complicated part of the file concerns offshore vessels and activities. They do not operate like a conventional maritime service travelling between two ports. Offshore vessels may use dynamic positioning, spend long periods waiting or at anchor, and use specialised equipment that consumes energy even when the distance travelled is limited. As a result, parameters designed around conventional maritime transport may provide an incomplete picture of their activities.Le Callennec believes that bringing these operators under ETS obligations should be preceded by an MRV system suited to the relevant activities. The rapporteur is not proposing to abandon the measurement of offshore emissions, but to build a framework capable of accurately reflecting how these vessels consume fuel and generate emissions before the corresponding obligations are applied.This position received support from some TRAN members. The debate included the argument that an operator should not bear a financial obligation calculated through a monitoring system that does not accurately describe its activities. At the same time, some MEPs want a precise timetable for resolving the issue, so that the offshore sector does not receive an indefinite exemption.A Renew representative presented, in this context, a possible sequence of steps in which new rules for offshore activities would be established before emissions were fully measured and before ETS payments were potentially applied. The intervention mentioned dates in 2028, 2029 and 2031. However, this timetable belongs to a proposal made during the debate and does not represent a TRAN agreement, a Parliament position or the final legislative timetable.The same intervention supported a more systematic approach for vessels between 400 and 5,000 gross tonnage, beginning with emissions measurement before the introduction of financial obligations. The argument is that extending the system should first enable the collection of comparable and functional data, so that operators can anticipate costs and plan their investments.The Commission, however, rejects the idea of a general postponement for the offshore sector. The executive acknowledges that the current system can be improved and that the specific features of these activities require adaptations, but insists that EU and non-EU offshore operators must be treated in a way that maintains a level playing field. For the Commission, reforming the methodology and including the sector must advance together, without a long period in which high-emission activities remain outside the ETS.The debate also addressed the risk of evading the rules. One MEP gave the example of European operators carrying out activities in EU waters compared with vessels from third countries that may conduct similar activities from bases outside the Union. The proposal made during the intervention is for the rules to prevent situations in which a legal structure or operational base allows a competitor to bear lower obligations for the same activity carried out in Europe.Specific issues concerning icebreakers were also raised. Their consumption does not depend solely on the distance travelled, since breaking through heavy ice may require very high propulsion power, while their role is important for connectivity and security of supply in certain regions. This example reinforces the argument that a system built around the usual parameters of a commercial vessel may need adjustments for certain specialised services.Other TRAN members called for broader coverage for certain categories that may have high emissions even if they do not fall within the traditional definition of commercial transport. Lena Schilling proposed, among other things, including private yachts and other large recreational craft, based on length regardless of tonnage, arguing that activities with significant emissions should not be exempted solely because of the legal category in which the vessel falls.Schilling also called for some parameters already monitored, such as fuel type, emission factors or speed, to be made public without creating additional administrative obligations. She also raised the issue of penalty formulas, so that the system does not paradoxically penalise a cleaner vessel more severely than one using a higher-emission fuel blend.These proposals show that “simplification” does not mean the same thing to all groups. For some MEPs, simplification means reducing the number of obligations and postponing the extension until the system has been assessed. For others, it means making more efficient use of data already collected and eliminating duplication, while maintaining or even expanding coverage of activities with significant emissions.The rapporteur also wants a significant share of the revenues from the maritime ETS to be reinvested in the sector’s European value chain: sustainable fuels, ports, shipyards and equipment. From her perspective, reducing the administrative burden and supporting European industry must accompany emissions-reduction policy, so that companies can invest in cleaner technologies.The Commission supports the general direction of simplification and alignment with FuelEU Maritime, but considers that administrative efficiency must not be achieved by excluding significant sources of emissions. The executive presents its proposal as a balance between the burden on companies and climate effectiveness and says that all economic sectors must contribute to the EU’s climate-neutrality objective.The TRAN discussion did not produce a final position. The parliamentary committee examined Le Callennec’s draft opinion, and the deadline for amendments was set for 6 October at 12:00. The rapporteur said that, after receiving the amendments, negotiations on compromises would begin quickly, according to an accelerated timetable.Therefore, any dates for including small or offshore vessels, tonnage thresholds, rules for yachts or penalty formulas remain proposals under negotiation. The clearest line of conflict is already visible: the rapporteur wants obligations to apply only once the monitoring system becomes appropriate for the operators concerned, while the Commission warns that excessive postponement could leave high-emission segments outside the European climate effort.