Carbon pricing is becoming a compliance maze

EPS EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime and the IMO’s emerging framework all operate differently. Unless policymakers simplify how they interact, shipowners risk duplicated reporting, higher costs and growing administrative burdens. Philippos Ioulianou from EmissionLink reports. The European Commission’s commitment to prevent shipping companies from being charged twice for the same emissions has been welcomed across the maritime sector. However, while the principle is clear, the practical reality remains anything but. Without detailed guidance on how duplicate carbon costs will be avoided, shipowners and managers are being left to navigate an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. At EmissionLink, we welcome the commission’s recognition of the issue, but avoiding double charging will require far more than a policy statement. It presents a significant administrative, commercial and technical challenge that the industry must now prepare to address. As there is no guidance on this as yet, we have to face the fact that shipping is already facing a crowded regulatory minefield. EU ETS and FuelEU are now in force and the IMO is moving towards its own global NZF framework, albeit at a slow pace. Nevertheless, each system has a different scope, timeline, calculation method and commercial logic. As a result, avoiding duplicate charging is not straightforward, it’s an administrative, commercial and technical challenge ship owners and managers must now adopt. For example, a vessel trading into Europe may be exposed to EU ETS, FuelEU and future IMO carbon rules. The obligations will not always sit with the same party, the data will not always be calculated in the same way and the cost will not always be recoverable under existing charter party terms. That means the risk for shipowners is not only potentially paying twice, it is reporting twice, calculating twice, or building parallel compliance processes that waste time and create confusion. How, for example, will EU and IMO obligations be reconciled and how will equivalent payments be recognised? Furthermore, how will systems interact without punishing the same tonne of emissions more than once and what evidence will shipowners need to prove it? This will determine whether carbon regulation is seen as a fair transition tool or simply another cost factor. Accurate, auditable emissions data will be more essential than ever but data alone is not enough. Owners also need the expertise to interpret that data across different schemes and make the right commercial decisions. At EmissionLink, we have already supported accurate FuelEU emissions data delivery for more than 600 vessels. That experience demonstrated to us how complex this is in practice. Every vessel has a different operating profile, every voyage has a regulatory consequence and every compliance decision can affect cost exposure, penalties, pooling options, charterparty recovery and future planning. A clear and agreed approach covering all these aspects may become a reality, but it will not make today’s obligations disappear. Owners, managers and operators need to understand their exposure now across EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime and the future IMO framework. This is where expert support becomes critical. The challenge is no longer simply submitting the right figure into the right system. It is understanding how current and future emissions schemes interact, how they affect the business, and how to avoid double penalties, duplicated processes and avoidable costs. In addition, carbon pricing will only retain credibility if the revenues are clearly used to support maritime decarbonisation. At a ShipEnergy forum during Posidonia, I argued that EU member states need to set out a clear pathway for the use of EU ETS and FuelEU-related revenues. These funds should be directed back into the sector. They should not become a revenue stream for governments. Demanding the shipping industry pays more while failing to invest in the infrastructure that makes decarbonisation possible is not a transition strategy. It is taxation with a green label. The European Commission is right to recognise the risk of duplicate carbon costs. The industry now needs rules that are practical, transparent and enforceable along with a clear understanding of how this will help support the industry’s transition to lower carbon emissions. Splash Splash is Asia Shipping Media’s flagship title offering timely, informed and global news from the maritime industry 24/7. Read Next June 26, 2026 France boards another Russian shadow fleet tanker off Sicily June 25, 2026 Landlocked Kyrgyzstan readies ship registry June 25, 2026 The commercial case for decarbonisation has finally arrived June 25, 2026 DHL taps Vela for wind-powered transatlantic cargo service June 24, 2026 IMO and Oman orchestrate phased reopening of Hormuz