With the application of the European Directive, which includes the maritime transport under the EU ETS, the Emissions trading in the European Union, Malta Freeport Terminals, the company that manages the container terminal of the Maltese port of Marsaxlokk, will lose a significant share of the traffic as a result of the reduction in lines that land there, in particular those of MSC companies and CMA CGM, the latter a shareholder of Malta Freeport Terminals holding a 51% stake in Terminal Link, the joint venture that owns the 50% of the capital of the Maltese terminal operator.

The alarm was raised by the CEO of Malta Freeport Terminals, Alex Montebello, on the pages of the 'Times of Malta' newspaper, explaining that the Directive, if it is allowed to remain as it is, "It will deal a serious blow to the competitiveness of Malta Freeport, with the consequence that the links to the local industry and that the costs are likely to they will go up." Montebello recalled that, "according to the new rules, starting in January next year, all ships above a certain load capacity, they will have to purchase allowances equal to 40% of their carbon emissions. This percentage will rise to 100% by 2027. Thing However, it is essential that the Directive does not fully apply to non-EU ports in the Mediterranean, by setting up the EU's transhipment infrastructure, including Malta Freeport, which is at a clear competitive disadvantage'.

"To put it simply," Montebello denounced, "the operators will be easily able to circumvent the Directive if will unload goods from Asia, from where today most of the Some of the products are shipped all over the world, to a port transhipment of the Mediterranean outside the EU and therefore They use feeder vessels, i.e. smaller vessels, to reach the final destination. If this scenario were to occur, there is a clear and obvious risk that carriers may decide to avoid Malta as a transhipment hub and, instead, to point to a non-EU port in North Africa such as Port Said East, Tanger Med or Damietta. The inevitable consequence would be a significant loss of business for the hubs of EU transhipment, including Malta Freeport Terminals. Inevitably, there will also be a negative impact on the local importers and exporters'.

With regard to the inclusion in the scope of the Directive on non-EU ports, which took place with the inclusion of the in the specific European regulation of the ports of Port Said East only and Tanger (inforMARE of 27 October 2023), Montebello noted that "inclusion nearby ports, such as Port Said East, Tanger Med and Damietta, in the Annex to the Directive is not sufficient to Safeguarding the competitiveness of transhipment hubs of Southern Europe, as the services that currently stopovers at EU hubs could be diverted to EU hubs. North Africa hub without incurring additional costs as the EU has no jurisdiction over these ports. As a result, it is Shipping companies are likely to choose the most convenient for their services'.

Strong concern about the probable loss by Malta of containerised maritime services that currently scale the Marsaxlokk container terminal was expressed in an interview with the Maltese newspaper "The Malta Independent" also by Kevin J. Borg, Managing Director of Malta Maritime Forum, the non-governmental organisation representing the industry Maltese maritime and logistics services. Mr Borg pointed out that, with the entry into force of the European Directive, 'the difference between between EU and non-EU ports could amount to 34 million euros per year for each route served. This - has specified - has been confirmed by the main carriers seafarers, who also confirmed that the competitive scenario is such that the decision of a single carrier to bear the cost of additional Emission Unit Allowances may have consequences on the very survival of the company with respect to others who decide to circumvent the directive. Clearly, this burden is excessive and such as to force the main shipping companies to look for alternative solutions'.

In addition, Borg said that the growth in investment carried out by the main shipping companies in containers terminals in ports located in non-Mediterranean countries to the EU, such as Egypt and Morocco, leaves no doubt that shipping companies are preparing alternatives for circumvent the EU ETS regime.

Referring then to the European Commission's decision to assess the effects of the Directive every two years, instead of every five as previously planned, in order to ascertain whether the new rules lead to a loss of traffic volume for the EU ports, Mr Borg pointed out that a review carried out by the After two years, it won't be enough to stop the hijacking of traffic to non-EU ports because investments and The decisions taken by shipping companies will now be irreversible and devastating consequences for European ports, 'with the catastrophic repercussions that will affect not only Malta Freeport Terminals, but also European transhipment hubs such as Gioia Tauro, Valencia, Barcelona and Algeciras."

To prevent this scenario from materialising, Malta Maritime Forum has called on the European Commission to immediately and temporarily suspend the application of the Directive in some EU ports for the transhipment of containers destined for third countries and coming from non-EU ports awaiting an adequate ex-ante risk assessment of assets, and carbon leakage and to find appropriate solutions'. In addition, the MMF suggested that ' propose, in consultation with key stakeholders, a alternative method of calculating the percentage that guarantees effective implementation of the ETS Directive in such a way as to ensuring: the success of the achievement of its desired and laudable climate change targets; constant and complete solidarity between all operators and Member States while seeking to avoid any distortions fair conditions of competition, transfer of activities and carbon leakage itself that the Directive is intended to be avoided'.