The maritime forum on Tuesday slammed local parties for politicising the repercussions of the EU's directive about trading emissions, saying their mud-slinging has harmed the common good.

In a statement, the Malta Maritime Forum urged "the country" to pull resources in the same direction and lobby European authorities "without politicising this matter as, unfortunately, has been the case in recent days with mud-slinging exchanges made in the public domain".

"These trivial attempts did no justice to the prudence and maturity that characterised the handling of this matter to date and have certainly not benefitted the common good.  We sincerely appeal to the political forces to spend our limited resources and energies on strategies that will contribute to desired solutions."

Under new EU-wide Emission Trading Scheme rules which came into effect this year, all vessels above a certain cargo capacity have to buy emissions ‘allowances’ to offset 40% of their carbon emissions when calling in at European ports. By 2027, they will have to offset 100% of their emissions.

The EU Commission describes the tax as a “cornerstone” in its policy to combat climate change.

However, industry stakeholders say the scheme is expected to add millions in annual costs for long-haul carriers.  

That is especially problematic for peripheral countries like Malta, which rely disproportionately on maritime shipping. 

Malta Freeport CEO Alex Montebello has warned that the rules will lead to higher import and export costs, something confirmed by logistics firm Express Trailers, which raised its prices this year. 

All Maltese MEPs bar European Parliament president Roberta Metsola, who did not vote, voted in favour of the legislative package that included the provision to make maritime transport subject to emissions trading. 

But last week the PN accused the government of having done nothing to ease the impact of the directive.  Reacting, the PL said it was European Parliament president Roberta Metsola herself who had described the directive as historical and crucial.

'All Med countries in same position'

On Tuesday, the MMF said that while the EU directive was well-intentioned, it had failed to take into account the negative impact on countries like Malta. 

MMF said all Mediterranean countries were in "exactly in the same situation", with the difference that these countries were not wasting time on pointing fingers. Instead, they were focused on finding solutions.

The forum said the regulations will go down in the history of the EU as the fastest tracked regulations, "as if there was an agenda to expedite the necessary discussion and approval, giving member countries limited time to examine and understand the full implications resulting therefrom". 

It added that the way the regulations were presented gave the impression they were going to effectively contribute to the fight against climate change.  

However, when the regulations were being discussed, there was no mention of alternatives being considered by the shipping lines to avoid paying the ETS.

By the time the economic considerations were worked out by the shipping lines, the European Parliament had already voted in favour of these regulations, MMF said.

"As the implementation date drew closer, the reality of the implications became apparent and no one can blame the shipping lines for working out contingency plans to avoid paying billions of euro by traversing the Mediterranean but avoiding calls at EU ports."

'No time for petty political bickering'

In its statement, MMF insisted there was no scope or time for "petty political bickering".

Instead, there was an urgent need for a national effort to ensure that all risks associated with the poor implementation of these regulations do not damage the Maltese economy.  

"We appreciate the daunting political task the government faces, but the country must do whatever it takes to ensure the direct maritime connections which Malta depends upon, and from which we have benefitted for many decades, continue to remain in place for the benefit of our nation and its people".

What does the MMF think of the regulations?

• They will not reduce carbon emissions from shipping within EU waters because not only will the ships keep plying through EU waters, but by shifting transhipment activity to non-EU ports, all cargo destined for EU destinations would have to travel longer distances, hence increasing carbon emissions.
• The objective of making the polluter pay will be defeated through the new surcharges that the shipping lines are introducing, very aptly called ETS surcharges, which the cargo owners are paying as of January 1.  In simple terms, the cost of ETS will be shifted to the European consumer.
• These regulations will not lead to economic growth within EU member states because the transhipment business consolidated over the past 40 years by European ports (including Malta Freeport) is now being offered on a silver platter to non-EU ports.
• The aim of increasing growth and jobs will also not be achieved because if the transhipment traffic is handled in non-EU ports, there will be a loss of jobs from the myriad of port service providers within EU transhipment hubs. Specifically in the case of Malta, these regulations will hurt the overall economy of the island because of the loss of connectivity for imports and exports which today is provided by the shipping lines that service Malta as part of their transhipment itinerary in the Med which shall now move to other continents.
• The directive fails when it comes to the objective of improving living standards for EU citizens through the risks brought about by the regulations in terms of increased inflation and the security of supply chains.