The French government wanted the new levy on small consignments from countries outside the European Union to send a signal against ultra-cheap imports from Asia. But just weeks after the measure came into force, an unexpected side effect has emerged: not the big e-commerce platforms are under pressure, but a French freight hub itself. Paris-Vatry airport in the Marne has recorded a massive collapse in its business and is now calling for a rethink in Paris.
Since 1 March 2026, France has been charging a two-euro levy per product category on certain small consignments from countries outside the European Union. The measure mainly affects low-value goods that are shipped to Europe in large volumes via platforms such as Shein or Temu. It was part of a political strategy to address the environmental and social consequences of ultra-fast fashion and to counter distortions of competition in European trade.
But the national initiative now exposes the limits of unilateral economic policy measures within the European single market.
Collapse of cargo business in Vatry
According to the airport, air freight volumes have fallen by around 65 percent in less than ten weeks. At the same time, 17 job cuts have already been announced. For a regional freight location like Paris-Vatry, which depends heavily on international logistics flows, this is a severe blow.
The cause lies less in a drop in demand than in the adaptability of global supply chains. International retailers and logistics companies quickly changed their routes. Instead of flying goods directly to France, they are increasingly importing them via Belgium, the Netherlands or other European hubs and then transporting them to the French market by truck.
Economically, this mechanism is understandable. Within the European single market, goods can circulate largely freely after their first entry into the EU. If the French special levy is only due on direct imports into France, a strong incentive is created to route shipments through neighbouring states to circumvent it.
As a result, France not only loses part of the intended tax effect but also logistical added value, jobs and customs activities.
The political symbolism of the tax
The parcel levy was originally conceived as a response to the explosive growth of cheap Asian platforms. Platforms such as Shein and Temu have been under criticism for months: for extremely short production cycles, high return rates, questionable environmental standards and alleged distortions of competition vis-à-vis European retailers.
The French government argued that the existing customs framework effectively favoured the mass import of small low-value consignments. Millions of low-value parcels are processed almost automatically every day, while European providers are subject to stricter regulatory requirements.
The new levy was therefore intended to achieve several objectives at once:
- curbing especially cheap imported goods,
- stronger control of cross-border e-commerce,
- financing additional customs and control capacities,
- a political demonstration of environmental regulatory competence.
France in particular has positioned itself for years as a pioneer of tougher regulation of digital platform economies. President Emmanuel Macron regularly tries to use national initiatives as a catalyst for later EU rules.
But in the case of the parcel levy, the structural weakness of this approach becomes apparent: as long as there is no harmonised European system, trade flows can relatively easily evade it.
The single market as a space for diversion
The Paris-Vatry case illustrates a classic problem of European economic policy. National regulations quickly reach their limits when companies can use alternative locations within the EU.
The Benelux countries in particular have traditionally benefited from their role as European logistics hubs. Airports such as Liège, Amsterdam-Schiphol or Brussels have highly developed cargo infrastructures and flexible customs clearance systems. Even small cost differences can lead to significant shifts there.
This creates a double problem for France:
On the one hand, a large part of the imported goods remains available on the French market. On the other hand, France itself loses revenues and employment effects along the supply chain.
The environmental benefit of the measure also appears limited. If goods are now distributed via additional European transport routes instead of by direct flight, CO₂ emissions could in part even increase.
A European solution in preparation
The French government therefore points to a planned European system that is set to take effect from 1 July 2026. At EU level, a unified mechanism is currently being developed to more heavily charge and control small consignments from third countries.
The background is the enormous increase in low-priced direct imports from China. According to estimates by the European Commission, several million low-value parcels now enter the EU every day. Existing customs and VAT systems are considered overwhelmed in many places.
Brussels is therefore discussing, among other measures:
- a flat European import levy,
- stricter product liability rules,
- digital pre-registration,
- expanded customs controls,
- and new transparency obligations for platforms.
An EU-wide approach would have the advantage of reducing distortions of competition between member states. This is precisely the point now being made by critics in Vatry.
Because as long as France acts alone, the economic adjustment costs remain national while trade flows respond flexibly at the European level.
The debate reaches the Assemblée nationale
The issue has now reached the political level. A written question in the Assemblée nationale is already dealing with whether the French levy could in future be charged in addition to a European flat-rate import duty.
This creates a sensitive issue: the risk of double charges.
If France were to keep its national tax in place while an EU-wide regulation comes into force, importers could face cumulative charges. That would further increase pressure on French locations and could trigger additional diversion movements.
Moreover, concern is growing within the French economy that national symbolic politics without European coordination will ultimately hit domestic companies the hardest.
The government therefore finds itself in a political dilemma. Withdrawing the measure could be interpreted as a defeat in the fight against ultra-fast fashion. Holding on to the regulation, however, endangers jobs and the competitiveness of French logistics locations.
The Paris-Vatry case exemplifies how difficult economic steering has become in the European single market. National regulations have only limited effect when capital, goods and logistics flows can flexibly divert within Europe. Especially in digital commerce, companies respond to new cost structures almost in real time.
France wanted to send a signal with the parcel levy. Instead, within a few weeks a practical test case emerged for the limits of national industrial and trade policy in the European Union. The coming months will now likely decide whether Paris sticks to its course — or whether the reality of integrated European supply chains proves stronger than the political will for national regulation.
Author: P. Tiko