Interferry has sounded a stark warning about the current state of negotiations over the European Union Emissions Trading System, saying the talks risk leaving ferry operators at a lasting disadvantage if road transport is granted further delay from inclusion.
Interferry’s warning
Sources indicated on 21 October 2026 that Interferry, the global trade association representing the ferry shipping industry, has expressed serious concern over the trajectory of the EU ETS discussions. The association says a persistent regulatory imbalance is developing that unfairly penalises maritime transport while competitors in other sectors, notably road haulage, appear likely to avoid or postpone equivalent carbon pricing.
Interferry’s intervention follows renewed moves by a number of member states to push back the timetable for bringing road transport within the EU ETS2 framework. The association argues this selective delay distorts competition and undermines efforts to apply a uniform carbon price across transport modes.
Market distortion and operators’ concerns
The effect for ferry companies is an ongoing competitive disadvantage, Interferry warns, because unequal treatment of transport sectors can influence pricing, investment and operational decisions. Where one mode faces carbon costs and another does not, market signals intended to reduce emissions can be weakened.
Interferry’s concerns, as set out in The report, focus on the practical consequences for operators that already face decarbonisation costs and regulatory scrutiny. The association is calling attention to how staggered or partial application of EU carbon rules risks shifting emissions rather than reducing them, and could penalise firms that have begun investing in lower-carbon technologies.
The dispute centres on EU ETS2, the next phase of the European Emissions Trading System intended to widen carbon pricing. Interferry’s statement in the report frames the present negotiating position as one that could entrench an uneven regulatory landscape if delays for road transport are enacted while maritime obligations proceed without parallel relief or transitional measures.
Interferry’s message is primarily about competitive fairness rather than technical design alone. The association told reports that ferry operators require clarity and a level playing field to plan fleet investments and route operations, and that uncertainty caused by differing timetables for carbon pricing is already affecting commercial decision making.
The association’s concerns add to a broader debate over how best to integrate transport sectors into EU carbon markets while protecting vulnerable operators and preventing carbon leakage. Interferry’s intervention signals the ferry industry’s expectation that negotiators should avoid measures that shift costs or traffic between modes in ways that would harm maritime competitiveness.
Interferry’s position, as summarised in the source report, is a call for parity: if road transport is to be given further time before ETS2 inclusion, analogous routes to address maritime exposures should be considered, or otherwise the maritime sector should not be expected to shoulder asymmetric obligations. The association emphasises that predictable, harmonised regulation is essential if the sector is to meet decarbonisation goals without suffering competitive harm.
European decision makers will need to weigh those fairness arguments against political and social pressures that have driven proposals for phased or deferred inclusion of road transport. Interferry’s public expression of concern is intended to ensure ferry interests are factored into those calculations, according to the published account in reports.
The dispute highlights how policy sequencing and transitional arrangements can shape the practical outcome of decarbonisation policy, and why representative bodies such as Interferry are pressing for outcomes they say will preserve competition and investment signals across transport modes.
Editor profile