The British Ports Association has pushed back against suggestions that UK port volume growth reflects shippers avoiding EU Emissions Trading System costs, attributing the increase to new capacity and carrier network changes.
What Happened
According to foreign media reports, the BPA objected to proposals that would designate Felixstowe, London and Southampton as "neighbouring container transhipment ports" under the EU ETS framework. The debate follows the EU's introduction of its emissions trading scheme in early 2024 and ongoing questions over whether shippers are rerouting cargo to reduce related charges.
In July, the EU ETS Observatory, developed by Spain's state-owned ports administrator, published a report suggesting that container volume growth at UK ports in 2025 was a direct result of shippers seeking to minimise EU ETS charges. It pointed to a reduction in connectivity for long-distance services at EU ports compared with neighbouring countries not subject to EU environmental rules.
Data showed London Gateway throughput at just over 3 million teu in 2025, up 52% year on year, while Felixstowe handled 3.6 million teu, flat compared with 2024. UK Department for Transport figures show nationwide container volumes rose by about 600,000 teu.
Background
The BPA argues that of the roughly 600,000 additional teu nationally, London accounted for around 500,000, and the DfT explicitly links London's increase to additional capacity at London Gateway. The association says the overwhelming majority of national growth occurred where a major new tranche of container capacity had just become available, a pattern not naturally explained by a UK-wide regulatory advantage.
The BPA also contends that measuring traffic by teu-miles does not reflect containers handled, cargo imported or exported, or conventional market share, and is particularly sensitive to port-call sequencing. It gives the example of an Asia-North Europe service calling at both Rotterdam and Felixstowe: if Rotterdam is the first European call, the long intercontinental leg is attributed to Rotterdam; reversing the order can sharply raise measured UK transport work even if actual cargo handled at each port changes little.
The association notes that with the UK also set to introduce a carbon charging mechanism largely aligned with the EU, the cost differential is expected to exist only for a relatively short window. The UK ETS Authority has proposed extending the scheme to 50% of emissions from international voyages from 2028, mirroring the current EU approach.
Impact on Shippers
For shippers on China-US routes, the direct impact is limited, but the debate highlights how European carbon regulation is reshaping Asia-Europe port calls and cost structures. If the EU ultimately designates major UK ports as neighbouring transhipment ports, cargo transiting the UK into the EU could face carbon costs similar to direct EU calls, narrowing the room to reduce charges through call sequencing.
On transit times, carriers may adjust Asia-Europe call patterns in response to carbon costs, potentially affecting connections through Europe to the US. On cost, carbon surcharge calculations may change as rules are refined. On customs clearance, shippers moving goods through the UK into the EU should watch whether origin and transhipment declaration requirements are adjusted accordingly.
Recommendations
Sellers using European transhipment should closely track how EU and UK carbon charging rules align, confirm call sequencing and carbon surcharge calculation methods with their freight forwarders in advance, and verify transhipment port declarations when booking to avoid extra costs or clearance delays. Official announcements should be treated as the final reference.