UK ports dispute EU carbon costs claims, citing investments and shipping changes as reasons for traffic increase, not regulations.
A new dispute has emerged between UK ports and the European Union (EU) due to carbon costs applied to maritime transportation. The British Ports Association (BPA) rejected claims that container ships are diverting to UK ports to avoid carbon costs under the EU's Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
The association argued that the recent increase in container traffic at UK ports is not due to carbon regulations, but rather the result of billions of pounds in port investments, new terminal capacities, and the restructuring of international container shipping lines.
The BPA warned that new regulations proposed by the European Commission to prevent avoidance of carbon costs could negatively impact the competitiveness of UK ports and future investments.
Container traffic in the UK increased by 11%.
According to an assessment published by the British Ports Association on October 15, the number of containers handled at UK ports is expected to increase by 11% by 2025, creating an additional volume of approximately 600,000 units.
About 500,000 of this increase, or 85%, occurred in the London port region.
The BPA noted that a significant portion of this increase is associated with the new container berth that will be operational at the London Gateway Port, operated by DP World, by the end of 2024.
The fourth berth, completed with an investment of approximately £350 million, has increased the terminal's capacity by more than a third.
The container handling volume at London Gateway is projected to exceed 3 million TEUs in 2025, marking a 52% increase compared to the previous year.
Restructuring of container lines had an impact.
Another reason for the growth at UK ports is attributed to changes in alliances in global container shipping.
With the Gemini Cooperation formed by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd set to implement its new service network in February 2025, the calling patterns of some Asia-Europe routes in the UK have changed.
Maersk's shift of some services from Felixstowe Port to London Gateway has affected the distribution of container traffic among ports in the country.
The BPA argued that these developments are based on independent commercial and operational reasons, unrelated to claims of avoiding carbon costs.
Spain's research sparked controversy.
At the heart of the dispute is a study conducted by the EU ETS Observatory established by Spain's state port authority.
The study indicated that the share of long-distance container shipping activities in Northern Europe taken by the UK was 17.5% in 2023, rising to 32.1% by July 2025.
In assessments for the first quarter of 2026, this figure was noted to reach approximately 36%.
Spanish researchers suggested that the EU's carbon costs could be influential in some route changes of container lines.
However, the British Ports Association pointed out that the TEU-mile indicator used in these calculations does not directly reflect the actual number of containers handled at the ports.
According to the association, changes in the order of port calls and longer voyages via the Cape of Good Hope can also create significant differences in this indicator.
Growth was also observed in major ports of Europe.
The BPA argued that the increase in container traffic at UK ports does not prove a direct loss of cargo from EU ports.
Indeed, in 2025, the container volume at the Port of Rotterdam is expected to increase by 3.1% to 14.2 million TEUs, while the volume at the Port of Hamburg is projected to rise by 7.3% to 8.3 million TEUs.
A growth rate of 0.7% was also recorded at the Antwerp-Bruges Port.
The association stated that this data does not support the claim that there has been a traffic loss across all European ports in favor of the UK.
The EU proposed a 150 nautical mile rule.
The European Commission has prepared new regulatory proposals aimed at preventing container ships from reducing carbon costs by using nearby ports outside the EU.
Among the proposals announced in July is a mechanism to not consider certain non-EU container ports located within 150 nautical miles of an EU port as a port of call in emissions calculations.
Additionally, it is proposed to reduce the threshold for transshipment activities used to include some non-EU transshipment ports from 65% to 50%.
If these regulations are adopted, some UK container ports may also be affected by the new practices.
However, these proposals have not yet come into effect.
BPA: Port investments should not be penalized.
Mark Simmonds, Director of Policy and External Relations at the British Ports Association, stated that UK ports have invested hundreds of millions of pounds to attract more ships and cargo.
Simmonds argued that these investments enhance the competitiveness of the ports, and it would be incorrect for the European Union to view this growth as an escape from carbon regulations.
While the BPA emphasized its support for reducing emissions in maritime transport, it stated that climate policies should be based on solid data.
The association called on the UK government and the European Commission to reassess existing data before implementing new regulations that could affect the competitive conditions of the ports.
The UK has also adopted carbon measures in shipping.
The UK expanded its own Emissions Trading System to cover certain domestic maritime activities starting July 1, 2026.
The implementation generally includes the operations and port activities of vessels with a gross tonnage of 5,000 and above.
Plans to include carbon pricing for international voyages are also being evaluated for 2028.
The ongoing dispute between the European Union and the UK is expected to influence container shipping lines' port preferences, transportation costs, and the competitive conditions of European ports in the upcoming period.
Source: SeaNews Türkiye
