The Commission’s Sustainable Transport Investment Plan purports to give aviation and maritime an equal footing in the transition to renewable and low-carbon fuels. In practice, it does nothing of the sort. The document provides aviation with a defined regulatory architecture, dedicated financial mechanisms and a clear investment pathway, while maritime is offered broad intentions and long-horizon promises. The imbalance is striking and will not go unnoticed by operators and policymakers who expected a genuinely twin-track strategy.
Aviation’s position is unambiguous. ReFuelEU Aviation already creates a harmonised market with escalating obligations that bind every airport in the Union. The STIP builds directly on this foundation. Targets are quantified to the tonne, investment needs are spelled out, and a sequence of interventions is mapped from 2025 through to 2050. Aviation receives the first pooled double-sided auction, a new Hydrogen Bank window, and continued access to ETS support that reduces the price gap between conventional kerosene and SAF. The Commission describes this as predictable, stable, and compatible with large-scale private investment.
Maritime receives none of this clarity. FuelEU Maritime sets a GHG-intensity reduction obligation rather than a supply mandate, leaving fuel choice largely to the market and giving national administrations considerable room to diverge. The STIP recognises this fragmentation in unusually candid terms. It references the sector’s slow fleet renewal, the presence of many SMEs with limited capital, and the need for differentiated fuel pathways across short-sea, deep-sea, inland waterways, and fishing. It offers indicative fuel needs for 2035 but avoids setting a binding trajectory. Even on financing, maritime is placed behind aviation. The pilot auction is reserved for eSAF and the possibility of an equivalent ETS mechanism for sustainable maritime fuels is framed as a question to be examined, not a commitment.
