Entitlement, FuelEU Database access, and the real bottleneck under FuelEU Maritime in International Shipping News 30/03/2026 FuelEU Maritime is now transitioning from a phase of preparation into one of execution. Over the first compliance year, market participants have developed compliance strategies based on assumptions. Surplus positions were modelled, pooling arrangements were structured, and commercial transactions were entered into on the expectation that these structures would translate into regulatory outcomes once the FuelEU Database and its operational framework became operational. With the first reporting cycle, this assumption is being tested. The question is now whether traded surplus can be operationalised within the new framework in a manner that produces the intended compliance result. In this context, a central issue that is beginning to emerge is the disconnect between contractual entitlement to surplus and the ability to realise that entitlement within the official FuelEU Database recently released by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) . FuelEU surplus as a regulatory construct A persistent misconception in the market is the treatment of surplus as a freely transferable asset. In many discussions, surplus is implicitly compared to certificates or allowances in other regulatory systems such as EU ETS, where transfer of ownership can be effected through contractual arrangements alone. Under FuelEU Maritime, this analogy does not hold. Surplus is not an abstract, detachable asset. It is intrinsically linked to the compliance balance of a vessel and is therefore vessel-specific. Its existence, allocation, and usability are defined not by contractual arrangements, but by how it is recorded within the system. In practical terms, this means that a surplus position only becomes relevant for compliance once it has been properly allocated and reflected in the official FuelEU Database. Commercial agreements can establish the intention to transfer surplus, but they do not, in themselves, create regulatory recognition. They create a dependency on subsequent actions that must be taken by the parties who have the authority to record and validate that allocation. The separation between FuelEU surplus trading and control This leads to a structural characteristic of the FuelEU system that is often underestimated. The parties that negotiate and agree surplus transactions are frequently not the parties that have the ability to execute those transactions within the applicable system. Access to, and control over, the FuelEU Database is tied to the entity responsible for the vessel under the FuelEU Maritime Regulation, the ISM company. As a result, the execution of any surplus transaction depends on whether the responsible entity, take the necessary steps to reflect the agreed allocation in the FuelEU Database. This creates a separation between economic arrangements and operational control. A trader may intermediate a transaction and a charterer may rely on it for compliance, but neither party may have the authority to ensure that the allocation is actually executed. That authority rests with the ISM company through which the database is accessed. Operational complexity in multi-party structures In practice, this separation becomes particularly relevant in multi-party arrangements, which are increasingly common in the market. A charterer operating a fleet of vessels across multiple owners may enter into a surplus transaction that, fr