The European Union has clarified that shipping companies will not be required to pay compliance costs under both its own regional decarbonisation rules and the International Maritime Organization’s proposed Net-Zero Framework (NZF) simultaneously — a move that removes a significant source of uncertainty for operators navigating an increasingly complex regulatory landscape.
According to Ship & Bunker, the announcement was made by European Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism Apostolos Tzitzikostas at the Posidonia International Shipping Exhibition 2026 in Athens.
“European companies will not pay twice, both in Europe and in the IMO,” Tzitzikostas stated in his address.
What the European Commission Said
A European Commission spokesperson provided further detail to Ship & Bunker, confirming that the Commission intends to revise relevant EU legislation to account for global measures adopted at the IMO level, with the explicit goal of avoiding double payment.
The spokesperson reaffirmed the EU’s support for ambitious global action, including the IMO’s 2023 Strategy targeting net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by 2050, and indicated the EU would continue working toward international solutions while protecting investments already made by the EU shipping sector.
Commissioner Tzitzikostas also expressed support for directing EU Emissions Trading System revenues generated by shipping back into the sector itself — to fund clean fuels, new propulsion systems, and emerging technologies — rather than into the broader EU budget.
The Cost Implications
Ship & Bunker’s analysis illustrates why this announcement carries considerable financial weight.
At current prices, one tonne of VLSFO at Rotterdam is priced at $709/mt. On an intra-EU voyage, EU-ETS and FuelEU Maritime pooling compliance currently add approximately $289.50 and $17.50 per tonne respectively.
In 2028 — theoretically the first year the IMO NZF could come into effect — the global framework would add roughly $72 in penalty costs per tonne, bringing the combined fuel, EU, and IMO compliance total to approximately $1,088/mt, compared to $781/mt if only fuel and IMO costs applied.
By 2030, tightened carbon intensity thresholds under both FuelEU Maritime and the IMO NZF would push the combined total further, to around $1,184.50/mt versus $839/mt under fuel and IMO compliance alone, according to Ship & Bunker’s calculations.
For vessels using lower-carbon options such as B30-VLSFO, the dynamics shift. Ship & Bunker notes that removing double payment slightly raises costs for biofuel users in 2028, while modestly lowering them by 2030, as overcompliance revenues flow through both systems.
Significant Questions Remain
Despite the welcome clarity, Ship & Bunker notes that important details are still absent. Commissioner Tzitzikostas did not outline any specific timeline for lifting EU rules should the IMO adopt the NZF, nor did he define what form of global agreement would be considered sufficient for EU measures to be withdrawn.
The NZF itself remains far from finalised, with Ship & Bunker reporting significant doubt across parts of the shipping industry about whether it can be adopted at MEPC later this year, particularly given strong opposition from the United States and other nations. Should the IMO adopt a diluted version of the framework, the EU’s response remains unclear.
Additionally, Ship & Bunker highlights that EU-ETS shipping revenues represent a meaningful contribution to the EU budget, and member state agreement to forgo those revenues may prove politically complex.
This development carries direct relevance for those tracking maritime decarbonisation costs, compliance planning, and the evolving interaction between regional and global regulatory frameworks. The potential removal of dual compliance obligations would meaningfully alter cost projections for vessel operations on EU-trading routes, particularly as the 2028 IMO NZF implementation window approaches. At the same time, the absence of firm thresholds or timelines means that planning certainty remains limited until further legislative detail is confirmed.
Gulf Bunkering does not provide operational or security guidance. This article is for informational purposes only. Operators should consult flag state authorities, P&I clubs, and relevant advisories for decisions relating to transit planning.
Sources: Ship & Bunker
