EU Emissions Trading System
As of year 2024, maritime activities are included in the EU Emissions Trading System (“ETS”). This effectively means shipping companies will need to pay for at least a portion of greenhouse gas emissions generated during voyages to and from the EU.
In addition to underlying costs related to effective compliance with the ETS, new policies and procedures may need to be implemented, in addition to having a dedicated carbon management function.
If the shipping industry were a country, it would be the world’s sixth-largest greenhouse gas emitter. However, when it comes to existing national and subnational carbon pricing regimes, very few address emissions from maritime operations. Where emissions are addressed, it’s in connection with inland voyages. Domestic compliance carbon markets are unlikely to mirror the EU ETS and require maritime operations to bear the associated cost of emissions.
Instead, carbon pricing for the maritime industry is set to be regulated at a global level under the framework being developed by the International Maritime Organization.
Predicting Carbon Pricing Measures
In July, during the 80th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee, the IMO confirmed its intention to implement global carbon pricing for the shipping industry. The policy is expected to be finalized in spring 2024, adopted in autumn 2025, and take effect in 2027.
Several countries, market participants, and international organizations have developed and submitted policy proposals to the IMO. Proposals range from a global shipping cap-and-trade system (advocated by Norway), to a carbon tax-like mechanism proposed by three different interest groups (Japan, Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands, and the International Chamber of Shipping).
All these proposals involve part of the funding going directly toward rewarding low or zero-emissions ships and voyages. There are significant differences in the level of detail between the proposals, the design and complexity of the schemes, and suggested (if any) amount of the levy.
The IMO can implement one or a combination of these measures. It also could formulate a different design that might not even involve emissions trading or a carbon tax, such as mandatory energy efficiency standards enforced by tradeable certificates, as proposed by the US.
Aviation’s Head Start
When considering what the maritime industry might do, it’s worth looking again at the aviation industry. A global carbon pricing regime has existed for the aviation sector since 2016, namely the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or CORSIA. Participation in the scheme will become mandatory for flights, with very few exceptions, starting in 2027.
This system doesn’t put a price on carbon per se, but instead requires airlines to offset their emissions through the purchase of credits. One credit represents one metric ton of reduced or removed carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas equivalent, and the underlying activity can take place outside of the aviation value chain.
CORSIA maintains a list of the types of credits that it will recognize per compliance period in relation to their issuing body, which can be either a public or private entity: for example, a national government such as China’s GHG Voluntary Emission Reduction Program, or a private standard such as the gold standard and Verra.
As long as credits are considered eligible, the price at which they were acquired isn’t relevant. This provides regulated entities with a significant level of control over the ultimate compliance costs, but in parallel, compels them to enter and operate in a new marketplace dedicated to carbon offsets.
Unlike the EU ETS, this market has a global reach with little or no regulatory oversight. However, this is expected to change. More countries are starting to make policy interventions, and a global carbon market framework is emerging under the Paris Agreement. It remains to be seen whether the IMO will follow the lead of CORSIA and include offsetting in its carbon pricing design.
How Much Is at Stake
The three carbon pricing design options outlined above—cap-and-trade, tax, and offsetting—can lead to vastly different levels of financial exposure. If the IMO opts for a carbon tax or levy, levels can be set as desired, and some proposals are reaching new heights ($637 per metric ton by 2040 in Japan).
For emissions trading schemes, authorities have some influence over the price and can introduce corrective measures, such as with price floors and ceilings. But the marketplace essentially determines the price, and as of September 2023, the EU ETS price is approximately $90. In voluntary carbon markets, the cost of an offset is the result of its attributes, including geography where the project was developed, type of technology, and standard that issued the offset.
In a recent report, the World Bank indicated that carbon pricing in international shipping could raise between $1 trillion and $3.7 trillion by 2050, and that this revenue should support shipping decarbonization, enhancing maritime transport infrastructure and broader climate aims.
Regardless of the route chosen by the IMO, it’s essential for shipping companies to understand the role of carbon markets—especially the role they can play in reducing the emissions footprint of voyages as “companies want to buy decarbonized shipping now.”
Trading in carbon offsets requires careful consideration and understanding of their complex legal, tax, and accounting nature, how policy trends impact their monetary value, public perception of offsets, and the potential related mandatory and voluntary claims.
Simos Simou
Senior Manager, Indirect Tax | EY Cyprus
Contact
EU | Compliance obligations for EU CBAM
On 1 October 2023, the transitional period of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) entered into force. During the transitional phase, importers, their representatives and brokers and certain other parties in the supply chain are required to adhere to several compliance and reporting requirements that may vary depending on the Member State of importation.
Simos Simou
Senior Manager, Indirect Tax | EY Cyprus
Contact
Central Electronic System of Payment information (CESOP): Less than a month to go
The Council Directive (EU) 2020/284 alongside Council Regulation (EU) 2020/283 introduced new recording and reporting obligations for Payment Service Providers (PSPs) providing payment services within the EU, applicable as of 1 January 2024. In Cyprus, it is expected that an implementing legislation will be enacted in the coming weeks.
The new regulations are designed to tackle VAT fraud, enabling national authorities of each Member State to perform investigations. The information collected by different Member States will then be exchanged between them and centralized in a European database, Central Electronic System of Payment information (CESOP). This data exchange will enable tax authorities to detect potential VAT fraud, by identifying sellers behind websites or marketplaces.
Georgios Mavroyiakoumos
Assistant Manager, Indirect Tax | EY Cyprus
Contact