A blacker sulphur directive
The pending sulfur directive in the European Union threatens to impose a burden of hundreds of millions of euros on the Finnish export industry and significantly weaken the industry's cost competitiveness.
Declarations about the free movement of goods and services and about equal conditions of competition within the Union thus sound like mere rhetorical flourishes.
From an export industry perspective, Finland is an island. Sea transport accounts for 80 percent of Finland's foreign trade, and for the forest industry, it is even ten percent higher.
Now the future of maritime transport is threatened by a directive that would significantly limit the sulfur content of fuel used in maritime transport in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel.
In this sea area, the sulfur content of fuel should be only 2015 percent from 0,1 onwards.
In other sea areas, it should be 3,5 percent until 2020 or 2025.
What would the entry into force of the Sulphur Directive in its planned form mean for Finnish transport, the Chairman of the Parliament's Transport Committee Arto Satonen?
The cost would be enormous, EUR 410 million according to the latest expert estimate received by the Transport Committee. This is particularly important because logistics costs in Finland are already very high compared to, for example, Central European countries.
The additional cost to Finnish maritime transport has been calculated to be several hundred million euros or even more.
Can the decline caused by the Sulphur Directive be reduced?
There have been models that suggest that ship-specific exemptions from the Sulphur Directive could be obtained or that EU support could be obtained for the installation of a sulphur scrubber. If the Sulphur Directive comes into force, all options must be considered. Unfortunately, none of them are sufficient to offset the cost effects of the Sulphur Directive.
Can the entry into force of the Sulphur Directive in 2015 still be influenced?
It is difficult. However, this is a matter of such magnitude that no stone can be left unturned. Finland must firmly fight against the entry into force of the directive until the end. The government programme states that Finland's competitiveness must be taken into account when the sulphur directive enters into force. In practice, we should be given a transition period for the sulphur directive to enter into force.
After hearing from numerous experts in the Transport Committee, what understanding has been formed of the Sulphur Directive?
Consultation with experts has reinforced the view that the Sulphur Directive makes no sense whatsoever.
But even though this is widely agreed upon in Finland, the problem is how to prevent the directive from coming into force in 2015 in a way that does not cause significant harm to competition.
