SEA Europe, disappointed by the measures taken by the IMO to reduce emissions from maritime transport, calls on the EU to act decisively

According to SEA Europe, however, in this package of measures ' still absent or are incomplete essential guidelines and remains regulatory uncertainty that will hinder the technological development.' In particular, for the association, 'the proposed Energy Efficiency Index (EEXI) for ships is not binding enough to ensure that the that the energy saving potential is fully exploited innovative technologies and alternative fuels Available. In addition, sea europe noted, the level of ambition required by the new Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) does not only it is low, but almost belittling. The 11% reductions in the cii established for the period from 2019 to 2026 - explained association - are based on the assumption that the transport maritime union has complied with most of the short-term obligations as early as the decade 2008-2018. However, this assumption suffers from an inconsistent use of definitions of transport activities.'

In addition, SEA Europe noted that sea europe was referring to the review of effectiveness of the requirements of the EEXI and CCI indices established by implementation by 1 January 2026, 'the agreed review of the for 2026 may not result in the necessary strengthening of the that small island developing states and less developed have maintained reservations about the need to avoid 'a disproportionate negative impact on states'. Therefore - noted the association - it is to be expected during future IMO deliberations plus exemptions by the rules than to apply them more rigorously. that - underlined SEA Europe - will further weaken the global greenhouse gas reduction potential of measures, given that it is well known that a significant percentage of of the world's merchant fleet flies the flag of states that will require an exemption.'

"Climate protection," said Christophe Mr Tytgat, Secretary-General of SEA Europe and cesa (Committee of E.U. Shipbuilding Associations) - requires legal certainty rather than novels. It is not possible that in 2026, if a review will reveal that the ambition of the 76th meeting of the MEPC was not enough to solve the climate crisis, it is possible to go back in time."

If the world's major shipowners' associations have time highlighted the need for measures in the field of mitigation of the environmental impact of shipping are adopted and implemented globally, i.e. in the IMO, absolutely thus preventing these measures from being taken at regional level, antithetical is the opinion of SEA Europe. The association of European naval companies consider that, 'given that the IMO is divided and paralyzed, a pulse is needed to European side.' "However," said SEA Europe, " it is not enough to increase the percentages of reduction or move deadlines. The EU - explained SEA Europe highlighting thus its divergence from the wish expressed shipowners - should also be at the forefront of the definition of appropriate instruments for the maritime industry.' To this end, the Navalmeccanica Association has urged the Commission to european union 'to support technological neutrality and a objective-based approach, including for dual-use technologies use, in order to avoid a reduction in (innovative) technologies clean fuels and in order to promote the rapid development of clean fuels alternatives for maritime transport.' "The EU- explicit Tytgat -- must act now, demonstrating that safeguarding climate change can be successfully combined with the success of the environmental technology market: this requires ambitious targets, appropriate instruments for shipping as well as investment aid for the renewal and modernisation of the fleet open to all technology options and all fuels alternatives.'

SEA Europe's position is not new, having been simply expanded to the theme of reducing emissions from the shipping that of safeguarding the interests of companies and of the European naval and security nations that constitutes its founding mission. In the light of this, it is by no means surprising the lack of opinion of ECSA, the Association of european shipowners, on the decisions taken by the IMO for the emissions from maritime transport. One's own duty to protect the interests of European shipowners, who they're with one foot here and one over there in the sense that they operate internationally but a substantial proportion of these are mainly active at European level, has evidently led to the ecsa's board to choose silence.