The European Commission’s commitment to prevent shipping companies from being charged twice for the same emissions is a welcome step, but the maritime sector now needs clear guidance on how this will work in practice, according to integrated emissions management service, EmissionLink.

The principle of avoiding double charging is clear, but the practical reality is far more complex. Shipping is already navigating a crowded regulatory landscape. EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime are now in force, while the IMO is moving towards its own global Net-Zero Framework. Each system has a different scope, timeline, calculation method and commercial logic. Without detailed guidance, avoiding duplicate carbon costs will not be straightforward.

A vessel trading into Europe may be exposed to EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime and future IMO carbon rules. However, the obligations will not always sit with the same party, emissions data may not always be calculated in the same way, and costs may not be recoverable under existing charterparty terms. According to EmissionLink, the risk for shipowners is not only paying twice for the same emissions. It also includes reporting twice, calculating twice and building parallel compliance processes that increase cost, complexity and confusion.

“The industry needs to know how EU and IMO obligations will be reconciled, how equivalent payments will be recognised, and what evidence shipowners will need to prove that the same tonne of emissions has not been penalised more than once,” said Philippos Ioulianou, Managing Director of EmissionLink. “This will determine whether carbon regulation is seen as a fair transition tool or simply another cost burden.”

Accurate and auditable emissions data will be more important than ever, but data alone is not enough. Owners and operators also need the expertise to interpret that data across different regulatory schemes and make informed commercial decisions. EmissionLink has already supported the delivery of accurate FuelEU emissions data for more than 600 vessels, giving it first-hand insight into the complexity of compliance across different vessel types and operating profiles.

“Every vessel has a different operating profile, every voyage has a regulatory consequence, and every compliance decision can affect cost exposure, penalties, pooling options, charterparty recovery and future planning,” said Mr Ioulianou. “The challenge is no longer simply submitting the right figure into the right system. It is understanding how current and future emissions schemes interact, how they affect the business, and how to avoid double penalties, duplicated processes and unnecessary costs.”

The company also highlights that carbon pricing will only retain credibility if revenues are clearly directed back into maritime decarbonisation. Speaking at a ShipEnergy forum during Posidonia, Mr Ioulianou argued that EU member states must set out a clear pathway for the use of revenues generated through EU ETS and FuelEU-related mechanisms.

“These funds should be directed back into the maritime sector,” he said. “They should not become a general revenue stream for governments. Demanding that shipping pays more while failing to invest in the infrastructure needed to make decarbonisation possible is not a transition strategy. It is taxation with a green label.”

Whilst the European Commission is right to recognise the risk of duplicate carbon costs, the industry now needs practical, transparent and enforceable rules that support compliance while helping shipping transition to lower-carbon operations.

“Shipping cannot decarbonise on promises alone,” said Mr Ioulianou. “The sector needs clarity, consistency and confidence that regulation will support the transition rather than simply adding cost and complexity.”