<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Panamax cargoes (carried by the largest ships capable of using the Panama Canal) of U.S. corn and ot</div>

Panamax cargoes (carried by the largest ships capable of using the Panama Canal) of U.S. corn and ot

<div>Panamax cargoes (carried by the largest ships capable of using the Panama Canal) of U.S. corn and other feed ingredients could be arriving in Southeast Asia from 1996 or 1997, after new unloading facilities are completed at west Malaysia's Port Klang, said Chris Langholz, the U.S. Feed Grains Council's regional director.Ports in Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries currently don't have facilities large enough to unload 50,000-metric-ton Panamax cargoes.Consequently, the region's corn market is dominated by Chinese exports, which are shipped in smaller cargoes, traders said.But the traders were cautious about the viability of importing big volumes of U.S. corn,...

Panamax cargoes (carried by the largest ships capable of using the Panama Canal) of U.S. corn and other feed ingredients could be arriving in Southeast Asia from 1996 or 1997, after new unloading facilities are completed at west Malaysia's Port Klang, said Chris Langholz, the U.S. Feed Grains Council's regional director. Ports in Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries currently don't have facilities large enough to unload 50,000-metric-ton Panamax cargoes.Consequently, the region's corn market is dominated by Chinese exports, which are shipped in smaller cargoes, traders said. But the traders were cautious about the viability of importing big volumes of U.S. corn, citing concerns that the region's markets are not large enough to absorb 50,000-metric-ton cargoes at one time. Chinese corn is exported to Southeast Asia in vessels as small as 5,000 metric tons, which are particularly suitable for the region's small ports, the traders said. The small vessels also mean the cargoes can be shipped directly to areas with low-level demand. Some ports, such as Bangkok, could handle Panamax cargoes through unloading the contents on barges, which then could carry the grain to shore. But traders said 50,000 metric tons in one shot is just too much. Mr. Langholz, who represents the U.S. feed grains industry, estimated that Southeast Asia needs about 3 million metric tons of corn annually, with the largest market being Malaysia with 2 million. The other major destinations are Indonesia and Thailand. But once Malaysia can handle the big 50,000-metric-ton corn cargoes, U.S. origins will be much more competitive on a freight-basis, possibly up to $8 to $10 a metric ton cheaper than Chinese corn, said Mr. Langholz, who is based in Kuala Lumpur. Furthermore, each 50,000-metric-ton vessel could carry combination cargoes of wheat, soymeal and corn, and various Malaysian traders - attracted by cheaper freight rates - could join together for a particular shipment, Mr. Langholz said. Mr. Langholz said Malaysia imports about 167,000 metric tons of corn monthly, and that would come to about 3.3-Panamax-size shipments. He added U.S. quality standards - such as moisture and foreign- material levels - are far superior to those shown by Chinese corn, and added Chinese supplies eventually will be strained by high demand in China.

US GRAIN GROUP HOPES TO USE PANAMAX VESSELS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">MPV industry experts call for exemptions to US port tax for China built ships, stressing the lack of alternatives for specialist cargo carriage and the unfair burden on responsibility on the sector.</div>

MPV industry experts call for exemptions to US port tax for China built ships, stressing the lack of alternatives for specialist cargo carriage and the unfair burden on responsibility on the sector.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Breakbulk operators and interests are pulling no punches in their responses to the United States Trade Representative proposal to hit Chinese-made and -operated vessels with fees of $1 million to $1.5 million per US port call.“Very bad for US trade,” “disadvantaging American businesses,” “disproportionately affect U.S. non-asset-based vessel operators, particularly those engaged in … breakbulk shipping,” according to various stakeholders weighing in on the proposal. In advance of Monday’s deadline for submission of comments to the proposal, multipurpose vessel charterers and operators have criticized the proposal for creating higher vessel fees that will substantially increase the cost of transporting breakbulk and project cargoes, including steel coils and industrial components. Captain Scott Bravener, CEO of McKeil Marine Limited, a Canadian enterprise that delivers marine transportation and project cargo services across the Great Lakes, St Lawrence Seaway, East Coast, and the Canadian Arctic, said the proposed port fees “fail to account for the frequency-driven nature of short-sea shipping, where repeated port calls amplify financial burdens.”He added that MPVs lack the pricing flexibility of deep-sea container ships and cannot simply absorb substantial cost increases. The proposed fees seem “designed for large ocean-going vessels carrying cargo worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars,” Bravener said.In its response, MPV operator BBC Chartering asked for a complete exclusion for the breakbulk sector from the fees “because there are no US-built multipurpose heavy-lift vessels and because multipurpose heavy-lift vessels carry critical industrial cargoes, strategic components and resources to and from the US,” BBC Chartering USA president Tim Kopfensteiner and BBC Chartering Carriers CEO Ulrich Ulrichs said. BBC said the operator’s 581 port calls to the US in 2024 would translate to $581 million in fees under the proposal, “close to 200% BBC’s annual revenue controlled in the US,” said the response. Suggesting amendments to the proposal, BBC recommended that the service fee be applied to Chinese-built tonnage prospectively; that it only applies to Chinese-built vessels without regard to the percentage of Chinese-built tonnage in the operator’s fleet; and that it corresponds to the size of the vessel.<h3>Rate not equitable for US versus non-US interests</h3>Another submission claimed the proposal unfairly penalizes non-Chinese shipping companies that have purchased secondhand Chinese-built vessels. A more effective and equitable approach would be to impose the fees solely on Chinese shipping companies, with Chinese-built ship, suggested Kasper Bihlet, director of chartering Norvic Shipping with broad experience in the project and breakbulk sectors. “This would ensure that the burden falls on the true beneficiaries of China's state-subsidized shipping industry, rather than on global shipowners who have lawfully acquired Chinese-built tonnage,” Bihlet said.Juan Ignacio Lopez, CEO of King Ocean Gulf Alliance LLC (KOGA), a transporter of mining and oilfield supplies, steel, agricultural products, dry bulk chemicals, power generation equipment, and heavy machinery, said the proposed rule would impose a higher tax burden on U.S. operators than their foreign competitors. Lopez calculated that non-US operators using Chinese-built vessels would face a $1 million per port entry tax, while US operators using the same vessels would be subjected to a higher tax of $1.5 million per port entry.“This disproportionate taxation on US companies puts us at a severe competitive disadvantage against foreign operators, who will have a lower cost structure when engaging in the same trade routes,” he said.To mitigate the unintended consequences of the proposed tax, KOGA echoed BBC comments that the tax be a tiered structure based on net tonnage, rather than a flat rate, and that it is implemented in a phased-in approach, allowing time for industry adjustments.Respondents also raised concerns that the fees would force MPV operators to ultimately pull US port calls. “This would leave a dramatic hole in the amount ocean tonnage available for trading in the US. Limiting the options of vessels available on the market to carry US goods would most likely increase costs further for U.S. shippers,” said a submission from John S. Connor, Inc, with interests in project cargo forwarding.Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Breakbulk operators and interests are pulling no punches in their responses to the United States Trade Representative proposal to hit Chinese-made and -operated vessels with fees of $1 million to $1.5 million per US port call. “Very bad for US trade,” “disadvantaging American businesses,” “disproportionately affect U.S. non-asset-based vessel operators, particularly those engaged in … breakbulk shipping,” according to various stakeholders weighing in on the proposal. In advance of Monday’s deadline for submission of comments to the proposal, multipurpose vessel charterers and operators have criticized the proposal for creating higher vessel fees that will substantially increase the cost of transporting breakbulk and project cargoes, including steel coils and industrial components. Captain Scott Bravener, CEO of McKeil Marine Limited, a Canadian enterprise that delivers marine transportation and project cargo services across the Great Lakes, St Lawrence Seaway, East Coast, and the Canadian Arctic, said the proposed port fees “fail to account for the frequency-driven nature of short-sea shipping, where repeated port calls amplify financial burdens.” He added that MPVs lack the pricing flexibility of deep-sea container ships and cannot simply absorb substantial cost increases. The proposed fees seem “designed for large ocean-going vessels carrying cargo worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars,” Bravener said. In its response, MPV operator BBC Chartering asked for a complete exclusion for the breakbulk sector from the fees “because there are no US-built multipurpose heavy-lift vessels and because multipurpose heavy-lift vessels carry critical industrial cargoes, strategic components and resources to and from the US,” BBC Chartering USA president Tim Kopfensteiner and BBC Chartering Carriers CEO Ulrich Ulrichs said. BBC said the operator’s 581 port calls to the US in 2024 would translate to $581 million in fees under the proposal, “close to 200% BBC’s annual revenue controlled in the US,” said the response. Suggesting amendments to the proposal, BBC recommended that the service fee be applied to Chinese-built tonnage prospectively; that it only applies to Chinese-built vessels without regard to the percentage of Chinese-built tonnage in the operator’s fleet; and that it corresponds to the size of the vessel. Rate not equitable for US versus non-US interests Another submission claimed the proposal unfairly penalizes non-Chinese shipping companies that have purchased secondhand Chinese-built vessels. A more effective and equitable approach would be to impose the fees solely on Chinese shipping companies, with Chinese-built ship, suggested Kasper Bihlet, director of chartering Norvic Shipping with broad experience in the project and breakbulk sectors. “This would ensure that the burden falls on the true beneficiaries of China's state-subsidized shipping industry, rather than on global shipowners who have lawfully acquired Chinese-built tonnage,” Bihlet said. Juan Ignacio Lopez, CEO of King Ocean Gulf Alliance LLC (KOGA), a transporter of mining and oilfield supplies, steel, agricultural products, dry bulk chemicals, power generation equipment, and heavy machinery, said the proposed rule would impose a higher tax burden on U.S. operators than their foreign competitors. Lopez calculated that non-US operators using Chinese-built vessels would face a $1 million per port entry tax, while US operators using the same vessels would be subjected to a higher tax of $1.5 million per port entry. “This disproportionate taxation on US companies puts us at a severe competitive disadvantage against foreign operators, who will have a lower cost structure when engaging in the same trade routes,” he said. To mitigate the unintended consequences of the proposed tax, KOGA echoed BBC comments that the tax be a tiered structure based on net tonnage, rather than a flat rate, and that it is implemented in a phased-in approach, allowing time for industry adjustments. Respondents also raised concerns that the fees would force MPV operators to ultimately pull US port calls. “This would leave a dramatic hole in the amount ocean tonnage available for trading in the US. Limiting the options of vessels available on the market to carry US goods would most likely increase costs further for U.S. shippers,” said a submission from John S. Connor, Inc, with interests in project cargo forwarding. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Project cargo

North American ports

Breakbulk News

Breakbulk stakeholders blast USTR’s China tonnage tax proposal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Container lines serving the India-US trade appear to be taking a hard line in the first round of annual contract negotiations amid overcapacity putting downward pressure on spot rates. </div>

Container lines serving the India-US trade appear to be taking a hard line in the first round of annual contract negotiations amid overcapacity putting downward pressure on spot rates.

<div class="phx-topic">India-US trade ocean carriers have kicked off their first round of contract negotiations for the next season (2025–26) and appear to be signaling a “tight hold” on rates even as excess capacity continues to undermine their spot price-hiking efforts. “Major carriers are looking firm on how they want to sell the space,” a Mumbai-based freight forwarder who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “But it remains to be seen if they will be able to hold that resolve for long.” Leading carriers are generally targeting long-term (yearly) contracts at rates of $1,900 to $2,100 per FEU for loads to the US East Coast, market sources say. Container rates, as measured by Platts, a sister company of Journal of Commerce with S&amp;P Global, have ticked up in recent weeks, to $2,250 per FEU. Forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce and asked not to be identified believe it all depends on how rate-hungry carriers will strategize their capacity plans as the introduction of an enhanced Maersk MECL loop, since late February, added to that pressure. The last MECL sailing is said to have lifted close to 4,000 TEUs out of West India, compared with the previous average of 2,500 TEUs a week, which arguably meant some market share losses for CMA CGM’s Indamex and Hapag-Lloyd’s TPI services, sources stated. “No contract deals are done yet,” a line manager at a European carrier said. “Customers are negotiating for the best rates they can buy.” While annual service contracts typically come into play from May 1, last year, negotiations continued well into June and July as shippers and forwarders found the spot market more attractive. Even now, as a second carrier source told the Journal Commerce, several large beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) don't want to rush into finalizing their contract commitments due to ongoing volatile market conditions — an early indicator of coming long negotiations. That said, Maersk, known for its compliance enforcement, usually closes all contract deals by April 30. “It’s a <a href=" ">falling market</a>, so we are a bit cautious about locking ourselves into any fixed rates with exposure to several terms/conditions,” a logistics head at a diversified Indian conglomerate noted. “Moreover, we are now seeing sales calls from several first-time carriers, promising better rates than our regular liner partners and forwarding agents.” Local forwarding houses and global non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) control a significant portion of the Indian container market. “We are awaiting firm [contract] proposals after some informal discussions,” said an NVO country head with high stakes in the India-US trade. In the last contracting cycle, the lead carriers — Hapag-Lloyd, CMA CGM and Maersk — were initially negotiating to close deals at rates in the range of $2,100 and $2,300 per FEU but eventually had to settle at about $1,900 per FEU due to the entry of Ocean Network Express’ standalone WIN loop from May 2024. ONE and other smaller operators, especially Cosco Shipping, ended up signing at rates of $1,600 to $1,700 per FEU last year, sources noted. “As things stand, the market is heading toward the same direction, plus or minus 10% contingent on shippers’ minimum quantity commitments (MQCs),” an industry expert said. Contact Bency Matthew at <a href="bencymathew@gmail.com">bencymathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

India-US trade ocean carriers have kicked off their first round of contract negotiations for the next season (2025–26) and appear to be signaling a “tight hold” on rates even as excess capacity continues to undermine their spot price-hiking efforts. “Major carriers are looking firm on how they want to sell the space,” a Mumbai-based freight forwarder who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “But it remains to be seen if they will be able to hold that resolve for long.” Leading carriers are generally targeting long-term (yearly) contracts at rates of $1,900 to $2,100 per FEU for loads to the US East Coast, market sources say. Container rates, as measured by Platts, a sister company of Journal of Commerce with S&P Global, have ticked up in recent weeks, to $2,250 per FEU. Forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce and asked not to be identified believe it all depends on how rate-hungry carriers will strategize their capacity plans as the introduction of an enhanced Maersk MECL loop, since late February, added to that pressure. The last MECL sailing is said to have lifted close to 4,000 TEUs out of West India, compared with the previous average of 2,500 TEUs a week, which arguably meant some market share losses for CMA CGM’s Indamex and Hapag-Lloyd’s TPI services, sources stated. “No contract deals are done yet,” a line manager at a European carrier said. “Customers are negotiating for the best rates they can buy.” While annual service contracts typically come into play from May 1, last year, negotiations continued well into June and July as shippers and forwarders found the spot market more attractive. Even now, as a second carrier source told the Journal Commerce, several large beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) don't want to rush into finalizing their contract commitments due to ongoing volatile market conditions — an early indicator of coming long negotiations. That said, Maersk, known for its compliance enforcement, usually closes all contract deals by April 30. “It’s a falling market , so we are a bit cautious about locking ourselves into any fixed rates with exposure to several terms/conditions,” a logistics head at a diversified Indian conglomerate noted. “Moreover, we are now seeing sales calls from several first-time carriers, promising better rates than our regular liner partners and forwarding agents.” Local forwarding houses and global non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) control a significant portion of the Indian container market. “We are awaiting firm [contract] proposals after some informal discussions,” said an NVO country head with high stakes in the India-US trade. In the last contracting cycle, the lead carriers — Hapag-Lloyd, CMA CGM and Maersk — were initially negotiating to close deals at rates in the range of $2,100 and $2,300 per FEU but eventually had to settle at about $1,900 per FEU due to the entry of Ocean Network Express’ standalone WIN loop from May 2024. ONE and other smaller operators, especially Cosco Shipping, ended up signing at rates of $1,600 to $1,700 per FEU last year, sources noted. “As things stand, the market is heading toward the same direction, plus or minus 10% contingent on shippers’ minimum quantity commitments (MQCs),” an industry expert said. Contact Bency Matthew at bencymathew@gmail.com .

Trans-Pacific

Container lines

India-US contract cycle shadowed by overcapacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Air cargo operators out of Europe’s busiest airport will face at least a week of turmoil as airlines, forwarders and terminals start clearing the rapidly building backlog of freight when flight operations restart at midnight Friday.</div>

Air cargo operators out of Europe’s busiest airport will face at least a week of turmoil as airlines, forwarders and terminals start clearing the rapidly building backlog of freight when flight operations restart at midnight Friday.

<div class="phx-topic">Air freight forwarders are scrambling to recover cargo stranded at airports across Europe and the UK with inbound planes forced to divert following the complete shutdown of London’s Heathrow airport. Europe’s busiest airport will remain shut all Friday after a fire at an electrical substation cut power to most of west London, including the airport, and led to the cancelation or diversion of more than 1,300 flights. “Due to a power outage in the London Heathrow area, our operations are temporarily disrupted...at this time, we are unable to accept any freight at London Heathrow,” IAG Cargo, the holding company for British Airways and Iberia, said in a customer advisory Friday. The scale of the disruption to cargo is immense. In February, Heathrow handled 120,000 tons of air cargo, according to the airport authority, with record volume in 2024 that increased 10.4% year over year to 1.5 million tons. Flights on the ground at Heathrow are unable to take off and inbound aircraft are being rerouted to cities such as Barcelona, Lyon and Glasgow, stranding passengers and severely disrupting air freight flows. “Today’s closure of Heathrow is going to have a profound impact on supply chains for days, and potentially weeks,” was the grim assessment of Angus Hind, director of UK-based forwarder Europa Air and Sea. “Airline handling facilities are operating as normal, so airline transfers from European hubs and UK airports will continue to arrive on the ground and be processed as normal,” he said in a statement. But the terminals will need to work through the backlog of freight when flights resume, he added. <h3>Airline sheds filling up fast </h3>The British International Freight Association (BIFA) said in a statement Friday that the impact of Heathrow’s closure will be significant on both import and export shipments that depend on a consistent flow of goods. “For exports the immediate concern will be that airline sheds will fill up rapidly and be unable to accept fresh freight (perishable) deliveries, which will then affect other parties. For imports, freight will not arrive at or be diverted from its original destination,” BIFA noted. Much of the cargo in and out of Heathrow is carried in the below-deck bellies of passenger aircraft and BIFA warned that when flights were restored, the onward movement of passengers would likely take precedence over air freight that could potentially restrict the cargo capacity available. Heathrow is a key airport serving the trans-Atlantic trade lane that has been seeing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-atlantic-air-cargo-demand-surges-ahead-of-us-tariffs-5965691">rising demand as the US implements tariffs</a> on the European Union. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Air freight forwarders are scrambling to recover cargo stranded at airports across Europe and the UK with inbound planes forced to divert following the complete shutdown of London’s Heathrow airport. Europe’s busiest airport will remain shut all Friday after a fire at an electrical substation cut power to most of west London, including the airport, and led to the cancelation or diversion of more than 1,300 flights. “Due to a power outage in the London Heathrow area, our operations are temporarily disrupted...at this time, we are unable to accept any freight at London Heathrow,” IAG Cargo, the holding company for British Airways and Iberia, said in a customer advisory Friday. The scale of the disruption to cargo is immense. In February, Heathrow handled 120,000 tons of air cargo, according to the airport authority, with record volume in 2024 that increased 10.4% year over year to 1.5 million tons. Flights on the ground at Heathrow are unable to take off and inbound aircraft are being rerouted to cities such as Barcelona, Lyon and Glasgow, stranding passengers and severely disrupting air freight flows. “Today’s closure of Heathrow is going to have a profound impact on supply chains for days, and potentially weeks,” was the grim assessment of Angus Hind, director of UK-based forwarder Europa Air and Sea. “Airline handling facilities are operating as normal, so airline transfers from European hubs and UK airports will continue to arrive on the ground and be processed as normal,” he said in a statement. But the terminals will need to work through the backlog of freight when flights resume, he added. Airline sheds filling up fast The British International Freight Association (BIFA) said in a statement Friday that the impact of Heathrow’s closure will be significant on both import and export shipments that depend on a consistent flow of goods. “For exports the immediate concern will be that airline sheds will fill up rapidly and be unable to accept fresh freight (perishable) deliveries, which will then affect other parties. For imports, freight will not arrive at or be diverted from its original destination,” BIFA noted. Much of the cargo in and out of Heathrow is carried in the below-deck bellies of passenger aircraft and BIFA warned that when flights were restored, the onward movement of passengers would likely take precedence over air freight that could potentially restrict the cargo capacity available. Heathrow is a key airport serving the trans-Atlantic trade lane that has been seeing rising demand as the US implements tariffs on the European Union. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Heathrow shut down plunges air cargo supply chain into chaos

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The IMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations, which potentially puts the organization in the crosshairs of the new administration that is reassessing all its UN positions and policies. </div>

The IMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations, which potentially puts the organization in the crosshairs of the new administration that is reassessing all its UN positions and policies.

<div class="phx-topic">A crucial April meeting of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) will be the first during President Trump’s second term, with the US currently “in a holding pattern” regarding continued membership of the IMO, according to classification society DNV. The 176 member states of the IMO will gather at the 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in London from April 7–11 to design a greenhouse gas (GHG) fuel intensity regulation and settle on an economic measure for taxing carbon emissions, with both measures aiming for implementation in 2027. Eirik Nyhus, director for environment and maritime at DNV, said in an MEPC update this week that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/progress-on-carbon-pricing-on-track-despite-us-stance-on-green-initiatives-imo-5929236">the US position regarding the IMO</a> going forward remained unclear. At the last meeting of the IMO’s Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 18) in late February, Nyhus said the US did not take the floor until the very end, stating that the new administration was reassessing all its United Nations positions and policies. The IMO is a specialized agency of the UN. The Trump administration is also in the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement climate change accord, part of a broader initiative of “reviewing for rescission all regulations that impose undue burdens on energy production and use.” A spokesperson for the IMO told the Journal of Commerce this week that “any member state can withdraw from the organization, as outlined in Article 73 of the IMO Convention, though they would still be bound by the treaties to which they are party.” Still, Nyhus played down the significance of a potential US withdrawal with the IMO having far more important issues to focus on. “While the US has turned into a bit of a wild card, I cannot see this being a showstopper [at MEPC] in any way,” he noted. “Many issues, big and small, remain under negotiation, with the two most challenging ones being the design of the greenhouse gas fuel intensity regulation and the choice of economic measure. The discussions remain intensely political,” he added. The goal is to have a net zero framework ready for approval at MEPC 83 in London, and there is pressure on member states to finalize the legal framework around a fuel standard and economic measure with implementation planned for October. If the measures do not roll out in October, it will place the IMO’s interim emissions reduction targets at risk. Ocean carriers are watching the MEPC deliberations closely — many have had to invest huge sums in dual-fuel ships able to run on cleaner energy despite the lack of regulations to narrow the gap between fossil fuels and the alternatives. “We <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lack-of-clarity-over-clean-energy-supply-driving-dual-fuel-ship-orders-5747200">have to take decisions on decarbonizing our fleet</a> over the next 20, 25 or 30 years, and we believe that the direction that we have chosen remains valid,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters at the carrier’s annual results presentation Thursday. “That means trying to reduce our emissions significantly until 2030 and also to stick to our target to be net carbon neutral by 2045.” <h3>No deal is not an option </h3>Andy Wibroe, lead regulatory specialist at classification society Lloyd’s Register, said in an MEPC update this week that one of the main issues to be resolved in April is how shipowners and operators will pay for GHG emissions from their ships on a well-to-wake basis. Funds coming from whatever carbon-charging measure is agreed upon are essential to support the development and scale up of a new generation of carbon-free marine fuels, which remain significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. Another crucial point is the support for developing countries and remote island states through the energy transition in shipping. Wibroe highlighted the divisions between two camps — those who believe in a technical measure built around a fuel standard that generates revenue from under-compliant ships paying for credits to make up the compliance deficit, and the others who want a flat carbon emissions fee to guarantee revenue and reduce the cost gap between fuel types. Small island nations oppose both approaches because they believe the fuel standard measure will not generate enough funding to support “a just and equitable transition,” and because they rely on sea trade for everything, the carbon tax will cost them out of existence. Navigating a way through the divisions among member states will not be easy, but Lloyd’s Register said the IMO cannot be seen to close this milestone MEPC meeting on a “no deal” basis. “It is not expected to be a hostile meeting, but there are many heated discussions already taking place in back rooms and corridors that will continue in the lead up to the meeting,” Wibroe said. “It is anticipated, however, that the IMO is still likely to close MEPC 83 with a consensus.” Nyhus had the same view that by the time MEPC delegates emerge on April 11 from their London Embankment bunker at the IMO headquarters in London they will have reached a deal of some kind. “It looks pretty certain that this is going to come down to the wire at MEPC 83 with a very real possibility that the meeting at some point simply will be presented with a take it or leave it proposal,” was Nyhus’ assessment. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A crucial April meeting of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) will be the first during President Trump’s second term, with the US currently “in a holding pattern” regarding continued membership of the IMO, according to classification society DNV. The 176 member states of the IMO will gather at the 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in London from April 7–11 to design a greenhouse gas (GHG) fuel intensity regulation and settle on an economic measure for taxing carbon emissions, with both measures aiming for implementation in 2027. Eirik Nyhus, director for environment and maritime at DNV, said in an MEPC update this week that the US position regarding the IMO going forward remained unclear. At the last meeting of the IMO’s Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 18) in late February, Nyhus said the US did not take the floor until the very end, stating that the new administration was reassessing all its United Nations positions and policies. The IMO is a specialized agency of the UN. The Trump administration is also in the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement climate change accord, part of a broader initiative of “reviewing for rescission all regulations that impose undue burdens on energy production and use.” A spokesperson for the IMO told the Journal of Commerce this week that “any member state can withdraw from the organization, as outlined in Article 73 of the IMO Convention, though they would still be bound by the treaties to which they are party.” Still, Nyhus played down the significance of a potential US withdrawal with the IMO having far more important issues to focus on. “While the US has turned into a bit of a wild card, I cannot see this being a showstopper [at MEPC] in any way,” he noted. “Many issues, big and small, remain under negotiation, with the two most challenging ones being the design of the greenhouse gas fuel intensity regulation and the choice of economic measure. The discussions remain intensely political,” he added. The goal is to have a net zero framework ready for approval at MEPC 83 in London, and there is pressure on member states to finalize the legal framework around a fuel standard and economic measure with implementation planned for October. If the measures do not roll out in October, it will place the IMO’s interim emissions reduction targets at risk. Ocean carriers are watching the MEPC deliberations closely — many have had to invest huge sums in dual-fuel ships able to run on cleaner energy despite the lack of regulations to narrow the gap between fossil fuels and the alternatives. “We have to take decisions on decarbonizing our fleet over the next 20, 25 or 30 years, and we believe that the direction that we have chosen remains valid,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters at the carrier’s annual results presentation Thursday. “That means trying to reduce our emissions significantly until 2030 and also to stick to our target to be net carbon neutral by 2045.” No deal is not an option Andy Wibroe, lead regulatory specialist at classification society Lloyd’s Register, said in an MEPC update this week that one of the main issues to be resolved in April is how shipowners and operators will pay for GHG emissions from their ships on a well-to-wake basis. Funds coming from whatever carbon-charging measure is agreed upon are essential to support the development and scale up of a new generation of carbon-free marine fuels, which remain significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. Another crucial point is the support for developing countries and remote island states through the energy transition in shipping. Wibroe highlighted the divisions between two camps — those who believe in a technical measure built around a fuel standard that generates revenue from under-compliant ships paying for credits to make up the compliance deficit, and the others who want a flat carbon emissions fee to guarantee revenue and reduce the cost gap between fuel types. Small island nations oppose both approaches because they believe the fuel standard measure will not generate enough funding to support “a just and equitable transition,” and because they rely on sea trade for everything, the carbon tax will cost them out of existence. Navigating a way through the divisions among member states will not be easy, but Lloyd’s Register said the IMO cannot be seen to close this milestone MEPC meeting on a “no deal” basis. “It is not expected to be a hostile meeting, but there are many heated discussions already taking place in back rooms and corridors that will continue in the lead up to the meeting,” Wibroe said. “It is anticipated, however, that the IMO is still likely to close MEPC 83 with a consensus.” Nyhus had the same view that by the time MEPC delegates emerge on April 11 from their London Embankment bunker at the IMO headquarters in London they will have reached a deal of some kind. “It looks pretty certain that this is going to come down to the wire at MEPC 83 with a very real possibility that the meeting at some point simply will be presented with a take it or leave it proposal,” was Nyhus’ assessment. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Maritime

US in ‘holding pattern’ over IMO membership: DNV

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A deal between the Northwest Seaport Alliance and the Native American Puyallup Tribe will result in a 22-acre, two-berth terminal completed by the end of the decade.</div>

A deal between the Northwest Seaport Alliance and the Native American Puyallup Tribe will result in a 22-acre, two-berth terminal completed by the end of the decade.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Tacoma is more than doubling the size of its roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) terminal facilities after an agreement to build a new $200 million complex for ro/ro and breakbulk cargo.The Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA) and the Native American Puyallup Tribe signed a memorandum of understanding on March 17 to jointly develop a 22-acre two-berth terminal that will be built adjacent to the existing 19-acre East Blair 1 (EB1) terminal.The new terminal will expand berth capacity, “positioning the Seattle/Tacoma gateway to gain market share and increase economic activity across the region,” the NWSA said in a statement announcing the deal.“Increased capacity of East Blair 1 and Puyallup Tribal Terminal will enable new cargo services to call the Tacoma Harbor, driving more job opportunities on the waterfront as well as across the supply chain,” NWSA said. The NWSA is the marine cargo operating partnership of the ports of Seattle and Tacoma.Wallenius Wilhelmsen, Eukor Car Carriers, Glovis, MOL and Eastern Pacific Shipping are among the ro/ro operators calling at EB1, according to terminal vessel schedules and the NWSA.Both the new and existing terminals will be jointly marketed and operated by the NWSA and the Puyallup Tribe when the new Puyallup Tribal Terminal becomes operational in 2028–30. Tahoma Global Logistics, the Puyallup Tribe’s global logistics company, will also benefit by gaining direct access to shipping lines to market its services, the NWSA said.<h3>NWSA lays the groundwork for development</h3>The NWSA said the Port of Tacoma and the Puyallup Tribe are carrying out preparatory work along the Blair Waterway to allow development of the new facility. The port has also carried out waterway depth analysis and ship simulation to ensure dredging work will provide unimpeded vessel navigation to the terminals.The site of the new terminal is among 120 acres the tribe owns along the Blair Waterway that is intended for future development.The planned expansion follows significant growth of breakbulk volumes and automobile imports between 2020 and 2023 at the Tacoma and Seattle ro/ro terminals covered by the NWSA, which include the EB1 and Terminal 7 facilities in Tacoma and Seattle’s Terminal 46.Figures from the NWSA show breakbulk volumes climbed 55% to 453,249 metric tons in the four years to 2023, while auto volumes grew 117% to 338,917 units in the same period.Tacoma was among the secondary ports that gained cargo volumes when operations at larger US West Coast gateways were disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.But volumes slipped in 2024, a trend that has continued in the first two months of this year as high interest rates negatively impacted agricultural, mining and construction equipment sales and as auto sales slowed nationwide, the NWSA said.The Puyallup Tribal Terminal will have on-dock rail facilities and carbon reduction technology to minimize localized pollution to enable compatible operations with the EB1 terminal next door, the NWSA said.The deal is the first time a Native American tribe has partnered with a port, according to the Puyallup Tribal Council, the Puyallup Tribe’s governing body.Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

The Port of Tacoma is more than doubling the size of its roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) terminal facilities after an agreement to build a new $200 million complex for ro/ro and breakbulk cargo. The Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA) and the Native American Puyallup Tribe signed a memorandum of understanding on March 17 to jointly develop a 22-acre two-berth terminal that will be built adjacent to the existing 19-acre East Blair 1 (EB1) terminal. The new terminal will expand berth capacity, “positioning the Seattle/Tacoma gateway to gain market share and increase economic activity across the region,” the NWSA said in a statement announcing the deal. “Increased capacity of East Blair 1 and Puyallup Tribal Terminal will enable new cargo services to call the Tacoma Harbor, driving more job opportunities on the waterfront as well as across the supply chain,” NWSA said. The NWSA is the marine cargo operating partnership of the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Wallenius Wilhelmsen, Eukor Car Carriers, Glovis, MOL and Eastern Pacific Shipping are among the ro/ro operators calling at EB1, according to terminal vessel schedules and the NWSA. Both the new and existing terminals will be jointly marketed and operated by the NWSA and the Puyallup Tribe when the new Puyallup Tribal Terminal becomes operational in 2028–30. Tahoma Global Logistics, the Puyallup Tribe’s global logistics company, will also benefit by gaining direct access to shipping lines to market its services, the NWSA said. NWSA lays the groundwork for development The NWSA said the Port of Tacoma and the Puyallup Tribe are carrying out preparatory work along the Blair Waterway to allow development of the new facility. The port has also carried out waterway depth analysis and ship simulation to ensure dredging work will provide unimpeded vessel navigation to the terminals. The site of the new terminal is among 120 acres the tribe owns along the Blair Waterway that is intended for future development. The planned expansion follows significant growth of breakbulk volumes and automobile imports between 2020 and 2023 at the Tacoma and Seattle ro/ro terminals covered by the NWSA, which include the EB1 and Terminal 7 facilities in Tacoma and Seattle’s Terminal 46. Figures from the NWSA show breakbulk volumes climbed 55% to 453,249 metric tons in the four years to 2023, while auto volumes grew 117% to 338,917 units in the same period. Tacoma was among the secondary ports that gained cargo volumes when operations at larger US West Coast gateways were disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. But volumes slipped in 2024, a trend that has continued in the first two months of this year as high interest rates negatively impacted agricultural, mining and construction equipment sales and as auto sales slowed nationwide, the NWSA said. The Puyallup Tribal Terminal will have on-dock rail facilities and carbon reduction technology to minimize localized pollution to enable compatible operations with the EB1 terminal next door, the NWSA said. The deal is the first time a Native American tribe has partnered with a port, according to the Puyallup Tribal Council, the Puyallup Tribe’s governing body. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Ro/ro cargo

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

Tacoma to boost ro/ro capacity in $200 million expansion plan

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on first year of any subscription plan!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

UPGRADE AND SAVE: Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Latest News

Intermodal Service Scorecard

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

More News & Analysis

Breakbulk stakeholders blast USTR’s China tonnage tax proposal

India-US contract cycle shadowed by overcapacity

Heathrow shut down plunges air cargo supply chain into chaos