Supplementary provisions to the EU regulation on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels for maritime transport
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate regarding the supplementary provisions to the EU regulation on low-carbon fuels for maritime transport focuses on the balance between environmental transition and competitiveness. M considers that shipping is crucial for the economy and that the green transition must occur without damaging Swedish competitiveness 1. M wants the sanction fees to be between 1,000 and 100,000 kronor 1 2. V considers that the sanction fees must be raised to 5,000–150,000 kronor to have a deterrent effect 3 4. L emphasizes that shipping faces major challenges in the transition 5 and that the regulation is important for reaching climate goals 5. KD considers that rules should be handled jointly within the EU and that the public sector must facilitate new environmentally friendly fuels.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Johanna Rantsi (M)
Madam Speaker! Sweden is a proud maritime nation. At the very least, we should be. Shipping is an important part of the lifeblood of our economy, and a well-functioning shipping industry is crucial for trade, competitiveness, and growth.
We know that Swedish shipping companies are world leaders in green shipping, and they shall continue to be so – with pride. We shall take responsibility for a sustainable transition in this area, but it must happen without harming Swedish competitiveness. Therefore, it is welcome that it is now happening jointly at the EU level.
The EU's regulation on renewable and low-carbon fuels for maritime transport is a step in the right direction, but we must not turn a blind eye to any potential consequences. Regulation must never become an obstacle for Swedish industry and shipping to compete on equal terms, whether within the EU or globally.
The legislation we are now debating establishes how the regulation shall be applied in Sweden, including supervision and sanction fees. The Moderates support the goal of reducing emissions, and we shall ensure that the regulatory framework is both well-balanced and purposeful.
Complementary provisions to the EU regulation on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels for maritime transport
Our Swedish shipping companies must not be punished through rules that distort competition. We must ensure that the EU's regulatory framework is harmonized and that our national regulations do not make Swedish ports less attractive compared to the ports of our European neighbors. And in the long run, we must work to implement common global rules through the International Maritime Organization, IMO.
The legislation must be clear, predictable and manageable for companies. The sanction fees shall be proportionate and legally secure, and they must also not lead to excessive bureaucracy.
Madam Speaker! In today's debate, we therefore need to be able to distinguish between two parts of the EU regulation. It is partly administrative fines, and partly sanction fees.
The penalties for violating the EU regulation are very high and can amount to several million euros per ship and year. It is an enormous amount. The size of the penalty is calculated on a flat-rate basis, as appears from the already adopted EU regulation. The penalty level cannot be influenced in individual member states but instead follows a matrix in the EU regulation. The size of the penalty is already adopted. It is precisely the penalty that is the absolutely most important and effective steering measure to reduce emission levels for maritime transport.
The sanction fees that we are debating today concern violations of a more administrative nature. I believe that the proposed range, from 1,000 to 100,000 kronor, provides room for a reasonable and well-considered application.
The sanction fees that we are to take a position on are intended to be imposed, for example, if a shipping company fails to report certain documents or fails to meet a specific reporting requirement. The sanction fee therefore only applies to administrative matters and has nothing to do with deficiencies in carbon emission levels. These are handled within the framework of the penalty system and can result in millions of euros in penalties.
Madam Speaker! Sweden is now taking an important step towards more sustainable shipping by implementing the EU regulation and ensuring that we have the tools required for supervision and compliance of the same, but we must continue to balance environmental responsibility with economic realism and competitiveness.
We Moderates will closely monitor how the regulatory framework affects Swedish companies, and we will push to ensure that the green transition occurs in a way that enables investments without creating distorting rules and unnecessary costs.
Speaking of green shipping, that is exactly why we Moderates do not just lower the stamp duty but abolish it entirely. A green transition must be both smart, technology-neutral, and economically sustainable. In view of this, I move for approval of the proposal in the Committee on Transport's report and rejection of the follow-up motions.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! The previous speaker has described the importance of shipping. We in Vänsterpartiet completely agree with that. Without shipping, Sweden would come to a standstill. Swedish export and import are entirely dependent on shipping existing and functioning.
Shipping is also an important part of the transition to a sustainable, transport-efficient society. It is important with a shift from road to shipping and railway together with more smart intermodal solutions.
In addition to this, every individual mode of transport must become more sustainable. This also applies to shipping, which, just like all other modes of transport, needs to transition.
Despite the fact that shipping is an efficient mode of transport with low emissions per tonne-kilometer, it still has a significant environmental and climate impact. And despite the fact that Swedish shipping has come a good way in its climate transition, more than 99 percent of all ships in operation globally are still powered by fossil fuels.
Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, carbon emissions from shipping have not decreased, but have instead increased. It is therefore obvious that more must be done, at a faster pace.
In recent years, the environmental and climate impact of shipping has received more focus. In 2023, the International Maritime Organization, IMO, adopted what they themselves call a historic climate package that tightens the climate goals for shipping.
At the same time, several important decisions have been made at the EU level. Shipping is now entering the EU's emissions trading system step by step. This is good, but the EU also notes at the same time that emissions trading is not sufficient to achieve a sufficiently rapid transition, i.e., in the short and medium term. Therefore, shipping is now being regulated and a regulatory framework is being established to gradually phase out fossil fuels and also reduce air pollution in ports.
Madam Speaker! We in the Left Party view the new act with supplementary provisions to the regulation, which the government proposes and which we are debating today, in a largely positive light, with two exceptions. We have submitted two proposals for amendments that we consider urgent.
The first point concerns the level of sanction fees, which we believe need to be adjusted upwards. This is because regulation in itself is not sufficient; the central issue is compliance and that new legislation is followed. Sanction fees are a tool to ensure exactly this, but it is then important that the sanction fees are at a level that steers towards regulatory compliance. To achieve this, they need to be higher than what the government proposes, that is to say, high enough that they have a deterrent effect.
In view of the previous statement, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that the increase we propose is not a shock increase in any way, but a very reasonable increase. Unlike the government, which proposes a range of 1,000–100,000 kronor, we instead propose a range of 5,000–150,000 kronor.
Reading the bill, one sees that the government downplays the importance of the sanction fees. I think that reasoning is a bit questionable, because it clearly appears in the ordinance that national sanction fees shall be introduced, which means that it is recognized that sanction fees have significance. It also appears that the sanction fees shall be deterrent. This stands clear and distinct in Article 25.
Even more important for the legislation to achieve the intended effect is that there is a well-functioning supervision. The Government has chosen to appoint the Transport Agency as the supervisory authority, and this is a new assignment for the agency. We in Vänsterpartiet do not feel secure with the Government's setup, where it is chosen to let the Transport Agency handle its new assignment within the existing framework. This risks leading to several negative consequences. The Government needs instead to ensure that there are good and sufficient conditions for the agency to fulfill its assignment in a good way.
With that, I would like to thank you for the floor and move for approval of reservation number 1.
Johanna Rantsi (M)
Madam Speaker! The sanction fees that we are debating here today will be regulated and are, as I said earlier, intended to be imposed, for example, if a shipping company fails to have a certain document or fails to fulfill a certain reporting requirement. I would like to take this opportunity to repeat that the sanction fees, therefore, have nothing to do with deficiencies in carbon dioxide emission levels or, for that matter, different types of fuels. These are handled within the framework of the penalty fee system.
Vänsterpartiet writes in its follow-up motion: "Regarding the government's proposal in the current bill, we consider that the government has set the level too low regarding sanction fees. The level of the fee needs to be raised so that it is high enough to have a deterrent effect and furthermore stimulates shipping to choose sustainable fuels."
Madam Speaker! In view of that, I wonder if Member Malin Östh has understood the full meaning of this EU regulation. Has the Member understood the difference between specifically sanction fees and penalties? According to the regulation, the penalty can indeed amount to several million euros per ship and year. The penalties for violating the regulation are incredibly high.
Madam Speaker! Does it not have a sufficiently deterrent effect? Does it not provide sufficient incentive for shipping to choose precisely sustainable fuels? And how is a sanction fee, issued in the case of administrative deficiencies, supposed to stimulate shipping to choose sustainable fuels?
I do not quite feel that the reasoning holds up. The member is more than welcome to clarify this.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.
I am well aware of the difference between a fine and a sanction fee. I am also aware that one cannot be punished twice for the same thing.
When it comes to the sanction fee, I mentioned in my speech earlier that one notices in the bill that the government downplays the importance of sanction fees and calls it a sanction fee of an administrative nature. But administrative and documentation requirements are also important prerequisites for being able to comply with this regulation.
The EU also writes, just as I said earlier, clearly in Article 25 that the sanction fees shall be deterrent. I therefore think that we have clear support in the regulation for our proposal to increase the sanction fees. And I think, unlike the Member, that the sanction fees also have significance. It is also something that has been raised in referral responses, for example from Göteborgs Hamn. In the normal range, the sanction fee will be around 50,000 and below. It is assessed to be a sanction fee that is marginal for shipping.
I believe there is reason to increase the sanction fees. And the increase we propose is not a shock increase in any way, but an attempt to be more in line with what the regulation prescribes.
Johanna Rantsi (M)
Madam Speaker! Personally, I think that the high penalties we actually have are sufficient. But one does not always get exactly what one wants in EU negotiations. We have also chosen to introduce what we in Sweden normally call sanction fees for deficiencies of a more administrative nature. I think that the sanction fees, which according to the proposed law should be within 1,000–100,000 kronor, are perfectly sufficient.
Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet wants to raise the sanction fees, for a reason that is somewhat unclear to me. They themselves say that it is not a huge increase and justify it by saying it should be deterrent. It is an increase of 4,000–50,000 kronor more than the government's proposal for sanction fees in a context where the penalty fees can amount to billions of euros per year.
Madam Speaker! It is almost ridiculous to debate 4,000 kronor in a context where billions of euros are being regulated. I am, therefore, of the opinion that 1,000–100,000 kronor is perfectly reasonable and wonder if this is some kind of poor attempt by Vänsterpartiet to win cheap environmental points. I do not see why 4,000 kronor would make a difference in a context where we are also discussing billions of euros.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! I do not think at all that this is some ridiculous attempt from Vänsterpartiet, but we have a unified proposal concerning both the size of the sanction fees and the supervisory authority's conditions to do a good job. This is a new assignment for Transportstyrelsen that needs to be handled. And the government and the member's party have chosen to place this new assignment within Transportstyrelsens framework. The two things together become problematic.
I think we have important proposals for changes that simply need to be implemented.
Helena Gellerman (L)
Madam Speaker! We are now debating TU8 Supplementary provisions to the EU regulation on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels for maritime transport.
Transport accounts for a large share of global climate emissions. This also applies in Europe and in Sweden. In Sweden, transport's share accounts for about one-third of our emissions, while the share is generally lower in the rest of Europe where many countries have not yet transitioned their fossil-based residential heating. In Sweden, we have successively phased out fossil-based residential heating since the oil crises of the 70s. Therefore, transport accounts for a larger share of our emissions.
In Sweden, road transport accounts for over 90 percent of emissions, but the share is decreasing successively through the transition to electric vehicles. At the same time, all modes of transport must transition, and it is primarily shipping and aviation that face major challenges to succeed, as very large amounts of fossil-free fuel are required to replace today's fuel.
In 2023, the EU took a major step forward regarding shipping when we decided on the FuelEU Maritime EU regulation as part of the Fit for 55 package. This means that the proportion of fossil-free fuels in the fuels that ships use shall gradually increase from a 2 percent blend in 2025 to an 80 percent blend in 2050. Ships will also be required to use shore-side electricity supply or some other emission-free technology in port. The new rules shall apply to ships over 5,000 tons.
The EU regulation sets very tough requirements for shipping. Today, shipping has less than 1 percent involvement of fossil-free fuels. The transition is however necessary as global shipping accounts for a significant part of today's climate emissions.
Many things must however be in place for this to work. We must also ensure that we produce enough fossil-free fuels to succeed. It is many things that must be in place to achieve the EU's climate goals.
Today's debate concerns Sweden's supplementary law to the EU regulation. It concerns administrative fines, sanction fees, and supervision. The bill determines in which cases a Swedish authority may impose administrative fines on shipping companies according to the EU regulation. The law also means that the government may issue regulations on sanction fees for violations of the EU regulation in cases where an administrative fine cannot be imposed. The law also specifies what powers the supervisory authority has during supervision.
If a ship does not use enough fossil-free fuels or does not follow the rules for port calls according to the regulation, the company shall pay a penalty fee, the size of which is determined on a flat-rate basis according to the EU regulation. It is therefore nothing that Sweden decides on. One only decides whether a shipping company shall be imposed a penalty fee.
The Government proposes that a Swedish authority shall make the decision regarding the penalty fee if the company is registered in Sweden. The same applies if the company is registered in a third country, i.e., a country outside the EU, but is responsible for ships that call at more Swedish ports than ports in any other Member State.
The law also contains proposals for sanction fees that shall apply in cases of violations where a criminal fine cannot be imposed. In the bill, for example, one speaks of violations of an administrative nature. The levels of the sanction fees are proposed to lie between 1,000 and 100,000 kronor.
What is important in this context, also linked to the motion that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet stand behind, is that the levels between 1,000 and 100,000 apply if one makes errors of an administrative nature. What is truly deterrent is that one will have to pay very high amounts if one does not have sufficient blending in their fuels. The amounts depend on the nature of the deviation, but it could amount to millions of euros. The lower sums that I mentioned apply if one does not fulfill their administrative obligations.
The bill also contains a possibility to issue regulations on the obligation to pay a fee for the authority's costs for supervision. This is a matter that applies generally. The person who is subject to the authority's supervision shall pay the cost of the supervision. This is also linked to the motion, where it is stated that it is unclear whether the authority can cover its costs. But in this bill, it states clearly that the person the supervision concerns shall bear the costs. The authority will therefore have coverage for its costs with this proposal.
The Liberals consider that the new EU regulation on low-carbon fuels for shipping is important for achieving the EU's climate goals. Today's supplementary proposal with rules for supervision, administrative fines, and sanction fees increases the possibility of compliance with the EU regulation. On behalf of the Liberals, I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the committee report and rejection of the motion.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the proposal in the report.
We Christian Democrats consider it good and important that issues concerning aviation, shipping, and other transport between countries are handled jointly within the EU. Therefore, it is good that the government in this case adjusts our laws and regulations so that they align well with what we have agreed upon and so that we achieve a common whole.
At the same time, I want to point out that shipping, especially Swedish shipping, is already working hard to reduce its environmental impact. Given that approximately 90 percent of all goods transported to and from Sweden have at some point been transported on a ship, this is an important part of the Swedish climate work.
Madam Speaker! At the same time, it is not enough for the shipping companies and the Swedish shipping industry to work on these issues. The state, regions and municipalities, as well as Trafikverket and other authorities must also cooperate to facilitate the environmental adaptation of Swedish shipping.
Good and modern connections regarding roads and railways between port areas and other transport systems must be improved, as well as the possibility of providing electricity to both ships moored at the quay and electric ships. The public sector must also facilitate new environmentally friendly fuels such as biogas, hydrogen, and ammonia.
Madam Speaker! Alongside these important environmental measures, we must strengthen the conditions for shipping by facilitating the retraining of personnel and the training of new crew. We must also continue to review the economic conditions for Swedish shipping, so that more ships begin to sail under the Swedish flag.
We shall improve environmental measures within the EU and Sweden while simultaneously improving the economic conditions for shipping. In this way, we achieve great environmental benefits. For us Christian Democrats, it is clear that good economy and good environment go hand in hand. With that, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.