<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:These trade leads are supplied through the World Trade Center NETWOR</div>

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:These trade leads are supplied through the World Trade Center NETWOR

<div>FOR FURTHERINFORMATION:These trade leads are supplied through the World Trade Center NETWORK's FAX PORT, a service of the World Trade Centers Association. To receive details of specific offers instantly by fax, call: (900) 329-4982. You must call from a fax machine equipped with a touch-tone telephone. Charge: $3 for the first minute and $2 for each minute thereafter. Alternatively, you can call: (800) 656-1234 from any touch-tone phone and the leads you request will be sent to the fax machine that you designate. Cost is $5 per selection, chargeable to your credit card. For additional information concerning NETWORK, please call...

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:These trade leads are supplied through the World Trade Center NETWORK's FAX PORT, a service of the World Trade Centers Association. To receive details of specific offers instantly by fax, call: (900) 329-4982. You must call from a fax machine equipped with a touch-tone telephone. Charge: $3 for the first minute and $2 for each minute thereafter. Alternatively, you can call: (800) 656-1234 from any touch-tone phone and the leads you request will be sent to the fax machine that you designate. Cost is $5 per selection, chargeable to your credit card. For additional information concerning NETWORK, please call (800) 937-8886. OFFERS TO SELL Arabic gum and sesame Ref No.: 039169 Filed: 02-05-96 Rubber & plastic products Ref No.: 039172 Filed: 02-05-96 Propolis Ref No.: 039173 Filed: 02-05-96 Domestic items Ref No.: 039174 Filed: 02-05-96 Medical supplies Ref No.: 039175 Filed: 02-05-96 50 cc mini bikes Ref No.: 039197 Filed: 02-05-96 Petroleum products/asphalt oil Ref No.: 039198 Filed: 02-05-96 Newspaper printing presses Ref No.: 039199 Filed: 02-05-96 Cellulose acetate resin, film, sheet Ref No.: 039201 Filed: 02-05-96 Footwear Ref No.: 039202 Filed: 02-05-96 Oakley sun glasses Ref No.: 039203 Filed: 02-05-96 Hardwood dimension lumber products Ref No.: 039204 Filed: 02-05-96 Spare parts for pumps,compressors, engines and turbines Ref No.: 039205 Filed: 02-05-96 Mini-bearings Ref No.: 039207 Filed: 02-05-96 PVC Canadian & Colorado tree Ref No.: 039209 Filed: 02-05-96 Importer of used motorcycles Ref No.: 039210 Filed: 02-05-96 Alcohol Ref No.: 039216 Filed: 02-06-96 Shrimp eggs Ref No.: 039217 Filed: 02-06-96 Wheat flour Ref No.: 039218 Filed: 02-06-96 Raised floor supports Ref No.: 039219 Filed: 02-06-96 Bulk pharmecuticals Ref No.: 039220 Filed: 02-06-96 Assorted foods Ref No.: 039221 Filed: 02-06-96 Sports related merchandise Ref No.: 039222 Filed: 02-06-96 Quality Mexican artcrafts Ref No.: 039224 Filed: 02-06-96 Cable assembly/plastic injection pieces Ref No.: 039228 Filed: 02-06-96 Health care products Ref No.: 039229 Filed: 02-06-96 Lifting gear Ref No.: 039230 Filed: 02-07-96 Lactic acid, lactates Ref No.: 039233 Filed: 02-07-96 Framed Augusta National golf prints Ref No.: 039236 Filed: 02-07-96 Commercial licence for skin gel Ref No.: 039237 Filed: 02-07-96 Seeking call-back agents Ref No.: 039239 Filed: 02-07-96 Carbon black Ref No.: 039240 Filed: 02-07-96 Canning and packaging services Ref No.: 039241 Filed: 02-07-96 Two helicopter MU1 Ref No.: 039242 Filed: 02-07-96 Dyes/pigments/food colors Ref No.: 039244 Filed: 02-07-96 Ships Ref No.: 039246 Filed: 02-07-96 Semi-precious stones Ref No.: 039248 Filed: 02-07-96 Tomatoe paste Ref No.: 039249 Filed: 02-07-96 D-Limonene Ref No.: 039250 Filed: 02-07-96 Brazilian sugar Ref No.: 039251 Filed: 02-07-96 Titanium & rare refractory metal Ref No.: 039254 Filed: 02-07-96 Platinum/rice/sulphur Ref No.: 039263 Filed: 02-07-96

Maritime

WORLD TRADE CENTER NETWORK - TRADE LEADS

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The forwarder has contracted a total of 18,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent emission reductions on a well-to-wake basis that will be derived through the carrier’s Ship Green product.</div>

The forwarder has contracted a total of 18,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent emission reductions on a well-to-wake basis that will be derived through the carrier’s Ship Green product.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd and forwarder DSV have extended their sustainable biofuels partnership for two years with an agreement signed Tuesday that increases the pool of alternative fuels that can be used across the carrier’s fleet. In addition to second-generation biofuels, the agreement now allows for the inclusion of other sustainable fuel sources, Hapag-Lloyd and DSV said in a joint statement. Under the new agreement, DSV has contracted a total of 18,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent emission reductions on a well-to-wake basis that will be derived through Hapag-Lloyd’s Ship Green product. “Sustainable marine fuels are a tangible and scalable solution to reducing CO₂ emissions, and through close collaboration with Hapag-Lloyd, we are enabling our customers to decarbonize their supply chains," Michael Hollstein, head of ocean product at DSV, said in the statement. Danny Smolders, Hapag-Lloyd’s managing director of global sales, said both companies shared a clear ambition to accelerate the decarbonization of global supply chains. ”By working closely together, we can turn this ambition into action,” Smolders said. “This agreement demonstrates how carriers and forwarders can jointly drive meaningful progress and scale lower-emission shipping solutions.” Hapag-Lloyd aims to achieve net-zero fleet operations by 2045, while DSV has committed to reaching net-zero emissions across its own operations and value chain by 2050. Offering sustainable logistics solutions to customers was a key lever towards achieving those goals. The agreement is based on a book-and-claim chain-of-custody mechanism that allows customers to claim verified emission reductions, regardless of the physical fuel allocation to specific vessels or routes. Only emissions avoidance from biofuel that has already been used in Hapag-Lloyd's owned and operated fleet is allocated to DSV. The model enables shippers to comply with emissions-reduction regulations, such as the European Union Emissions Trading System, while sustainable marine fuels remain limited in availability. Biofuels currently represent the most available and scalable option in sea freight, although the volume used across the Hapag-Lloyd fleet remains in the low single-digit percentages, according to a spokesperson for the carrier. <h3>Regulatory safeguards needed </h3>While biofuel usage increases across the fleets of several carriers, climate campaigner Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has expressed concern over the absence of regulatory safeguards and careful management of the full value chain impacts. The EDF noted in a recent report that the popularity of biofuels was rising as a fast-track option for the transition to low-carbon shipping, raising fears that land use may be converted from food production to instead produce feedstock for biofuels. The components of direct or indirect land use have not yet been clearly defined as the International Maritime Organization is still developing methodological guidance on how to incorporate them. “How the IMO defines these terms and sets up safeguards will determine whether an increase in demand for certain biofuels results in deforestation, loss of wetlands, displaced communities and food insecurity,” the EDF report stated. The Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce the carrier supports the development of a global framework that regulates the sustainable criteria for alternative fuels worldwide. “What matters now is maintaining ambition and reaching agreement on a framework that combines environmental integrity, robust sustainability criteria and practical feasibility,” the spokesperson said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd and forwarder DSV have extended their sustainable biofuels partnership for two years with an agreement signed Tuesday that increases the pool of alternative fuels that can be used across the carrier’s fleet. In addition to second-generation biofuels, the agreement now allows for the inclusion of other sustainable fuel sources, Hapag-Lloyd and DSV said in a joint statement. Under the new agreement, DSV has contracted a total of 18,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent emission reductions on a well-to-wake basis that will be derived through Hapag-Lloyd’s Ship Green product. “Sustainable marine fuels are a tangible and scalable solution to reducing CO₂ emissions, and through close collaboration with Hapag-Lloyd, we are enabling our customers to decarbonize their supply chains," Michael Hollstein, head of ocean product at DSV, said in the statement. Danny Smolders, Hapag-Lloyd’s managing director of global sales, said both companies shared a clear ambition to accelerate the decarbonization of global supply chains. ”By working closely together, we can turn this ambition into action,” Smolders said. “This agreement demonstrates how carriers and forwarders can jointly drive meaningful progress and scale lower-emission shipping solutions.” Hapag-Lloyd aims to achieve net-zero fleet operations by 2045, while DSV has committed to reaching net-zero emissions across its own operations and value chain by 2050. Offering sustainable logistics solutions to customers was a key lever towards achieving those goals. The agreement is based on a book-and-claim chain-of-custody mechanism that allows customers to claim verified emission reductions, regardless of the physical fuel allocation to specific vessels or routes. Only emissions avoidance from biofuel that has already been used in Hapag-Lloyd's owned and operated fleet is allocated to DSV. The model enables shippers to comply with emissions-reduction regulations, such as the European Union Emissions Trading System, while sustainable marine fuels remain limited in availability. Biofuels currently represent the most available and scalable option in sea freight, although the volume used across the Hapag-Lloyd fleet remains in the low single-digit percentages, according to a spokesperson for the carrier. Regulatory safeguards needed While biofuel usage increases across the fleets of several carriers, climate campaigner Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has expressed concern over the absence of regulatory safeguards and careful management of the full value chain impacts. The EDF noted in a recent report that the popularity of biofuels was rising as a fast-track option for the transition to low-carbon shipping, raising fears that land use may be converted from food production to instead produce feedstock for biofuels. The components of direct or indirect land use have not yet been clearly defined as the International Maritime Organization is still developing methodological guidance on how to incorporate them. “How the IMO defines these terms and sets up safeguards will determine whether an increase in demand for certain biofuels results in deforestation, loss of wetlands, displaced communities and food insecurity,” the EDF report stated. The Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce the carrier supports the development of a global framework that regulates the sustainable criteria for alternative fuels worldwide. “What matters now is maintaining ambition and reaching agreement on a framework that combines environmental integrity, robust sustainability criteria and practical feasibility,” the spokesperson said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Forwarding

Container Shipping News

Hapag-Lloyd inks new sustainable biofuel deal with DSV

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Whatever measure is ultimately agreed to by member states, decarbonization experts agree the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back.</div>

Whatever measure is ultimately agreed to by member states, decarbonization experts agree the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back.

<div class="phx-topic">Decarbonization experts are running through different scenarios that will enable the International Maritime Organization’s delayed net-zero emissions framework to be formally adopted in November. A best-case scenario will see the IMO framework, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-punts-on-pivotal-net-zero-shipping-regulation-6099141">postponed for a year at a meeting last October</a>, entering into force in 2028, a year later than planned, and coming into effect in 2029. But a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for several years. The Global Maritime Forum and maritime classification society DNV looked separately at the different scenarios for net-zero implementation. And while the views of their decarbonization experts differed, there was consensus that whatever measure is ultimately agreed to this November, the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back. A new report from the Global Maritime Forum was released this week and looked at the different plausible outcomes for the net-zero framework (NZF). "Uncertainty at the IMO: Three scenarios and their consequences for shipping’s transition,” was co-authored by Tristan Smith, associate professor at the UCL Energy Institute, and Femke Spiegelenberg, project manager of the Getting to Zero Coalition within the Global Maritime Forum. Three potential scenarios were covered by the report: adopting the NZF unchanged from the measures voted down last October, adopting a single-tier fuel standard with lower compliance costs, and removing the economic elements altogether. The report noted that each scenario would have materially different impacts on timelines, enforcement, investment signals, revenues, low-income countries, and regional policies. “At a minimum, the implementation dates in the text will need to be adjusted to reflect the postponed adoption,” the report said. “More fundamentally, the political dynamics that led to the NZF delay introduced new uncertainty not just about the timeline but also about the final shape and ambition of the framework. “At one extreme, the NZF could be adopted ‘as is’ later this year, entering into force in 2028 and coming into effect in 2029,” the report added. “At the other extreme, a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on GHG reductions for several years.” <h3>A battle to build consensus </h3>The motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework last October was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. Despite 80% approval for the NZF from member states voting last April, 34 countries switched positions between April and October to favor the deferment in the face of growing pressure from the US. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. Achieving the IMO target of full decarbonization by or around 2050 with benchmark targets set along the way will require narrowing the wide price gap that exists between fossil fuels and the low- or zero-emission alternatives, which by its very nature will require making fossil fuels more expensive. But the US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. That position, centred around President Donald Trump’s view that a price on carbon emissions was a “global green new scam tax on shipping,” triggered extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. The IMO is now focused on building consensus around some version of the NZF this year before a reconvened MEPC meets in November to finalize the legally binding measures. With the US so fundamentally opposed to any economic measure that penalizes carbon emissions, one of the potential scenarios being suggested by some member states was to remove it completely from the NZF and focus instead on a technical measure. The Global Maritime Forum report warned that any removal of the economic element that is designed to make green technologies cheaper than high-emission alternatives would also remove the likelihood of effective enforcement. "A standalone global fuel standard with no economic elements would likely merely replicate what already exists in the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) mechanism, which requires ships with repeated non-compliance at a certain level to file a corrective action plan,” the report noted. <h3>Geopolitical hurdles ahead for net-zero framework </h3>Eirik Nyhus, director of environment at DNV, has also been looking at possible scenarios that would enable the NZF to be adopted by IMO member states. But he was not convinced that an unchanged measure would make it across the line. “Geopolitics being what they are, there are no reasons to expect the opponents of the NZF to shift their positions or their approach to negotiations by November this year, and therefore repeating the same process with the same proposal under the same circumstances, while hoping for a different outcome is not the best strategy,” Nyhus told a recent online conference. Pushing through the NZF unchanged would require the framework’s supporters to provide diplomatic surety and cover for the countries being pressured by the US. ”This is a high-stakes approach, high-risk, and not very likely to succeed, though there may be parties thinking it’s worth a shot again,” Nyhus said. Also presenting a challenge would be the removal of the economic element in a restructuring of the existing proposal with only the technical element put forward. The technical element covers the fuel intensity regulation that mandates progressively lower greenhouse gas emissions over time. “The opposition to any economic element, whether deferred or delayed, is going to be so strong that only a purely technical regulation really has any chance of going forward under that scenario,” Nyhus said. “If all relevant alternative fuel options are on the table, (a purely technical measure) could contain incentives for a large cross section of countries around the world, and in theory, this could lead to adoption in November this year,” he added. “But all the stars will need to align, and I think it will be a challenge for that to happen.” Another very real scenario would be flag states representing most of the global tonnage rejecting any proposal that is put forward. The NZF can be blocked if one-third of countries representing over 50% of global tonnage formally object during the adoption process. “In all of these cases, the timeline has really been pushed back significantly,” Nyhus said. “Despite it being theoretically possible to have something in place by November 2028, I think the issues to be solved are so thorny that the IMO will need more time, if an outcome can be negotiated at all. “Entering into force of some version of the regulation in 2029 is optimistic and 2030 is more likely, but I would not be shocked to see things slide even further,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Decarbonization experts are running through different scenarios that will enable the International Maritime Organization’s delayed net-zero emissions framework to be formally adopted in November. A best-case scenario will see the IMO framework, postponed for a year at a meeting last October , entering into force in 2028, a year later than planned, and coming into effect in 2029. But a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for several years. The Global Maritime Forum and maritime classification society DNV looked separately at the different scenarios for net-zero implementation. And while the views of their decarbonization experts differed, there was consensus that whatever measure is ultimately agreed to this November, the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back. A new report from the Global Maritime Forum was released this week and looked at the different plausible outcomes for the net-zero framework (NZF). "Uncertainty at the IMO: Three scenarios and their consequences for shipping’s transition,” was co-authored by Tristan Smith, associate professor at the UCL Energy Institute, and Femke Spiegelenberg, project manager of the Getting to Zero Coalition within the Global Maritime Forum. Three potential scenarios were covered by the report: adopting the NZF unchanged from the measures voted down last October, adopting a single-tier fuel standard with lower compliance costs, and removing the economic elements altogether. The report noted that each scenario would have materially different impacts on timelines, enforcement, investment signals, revenues, low-income countries, and regional policies. “At a minimum, the implementation dates in the text will need to be adjusted to reflect the postponed adoption,” the report said. “More fundamentally, the political dynamics that led to the NZF delay introduced new uncertainty not just about the timeline but also about the final shape and ambition of the framework. “At one extreme, the NZF could be adopted ‘as is’ later this year, entering into force in 2028 and coming into effect in 2029,” the report added. “At the other extreme, a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on GHG reductions for several years.” A battle to build consensus The motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework last October was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. Despite 80% approval for the NZF from member states voting last April, 34 countries switched positions between April and October to favor the deferment in the face of growing pressure from the US. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. Achieving the IMO target of full decarbonization by or around 2050 with benchmark targets set along the way will require narrowing the wide price gap that exists between fossil fuels and the low- or zero-emission alternatives, which by its very nature will require making fossil fuels more expensive. But the US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. That position, centred around President Donald Trump’s view that a price on carbon emissions was a “global green new scam tax on shipping,” triggered extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. The IMO is now focused on building consensus around some version of the NZF this year before a reconvened MEPC meets in November to finalize the legally binding measures. With the US so fundamentally opposed to any economic measure that penalizes carbon emissions, one of the potential scenarios being suggested by some member states was to remove it completely from the NZF and focus instead on a technical measure. The Global Maritime Forum report warned that any removal of the economic element that is designed to make green technologies cheaper than high-emission alternatives would also remove the likelihood of effective enforcement. "A standalone global fuel standard with no economic elements would likely merely replicate what already exists in the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) mechanism, which requires ships with repeated non-compliance at a certain level to file a corrective action plan,” the report noted. Geopolitical hurdles ahead for net-zero framework Eirik Nyhus, director of environment at DNV, has also been looking at possible scenarios that would enable the NZF to be adopted by IMO member states. But he was not convinced that an unchanged measure would make it across the line. “Geopolitics being what they are, there are no reasons to expect the opponents of the NZF to shift their positions or their approach to negotiations by November this year, and therefore repeating the same process with the same proposal under the same circumstances, while hoping for a different outcome is not the best strategy,” Nyhus told a recent online conference. Pushing through the NZF unchanged would require the framework’s supporters to provide diplomatic surety and cover for the countries being pressured by the US. ”This is a high-stakes approach, high-risk, and not very likely to succeed, though there may be parties thinking it’s worth a shot again,” Nyhus said. Also presenting a challenge would be the removal of the economic element in a restructuring of the existing proposal with only the technical element put forward. The technical element covers the fuel intensity regulation that mandates progressively lower greenhouse gas emissions over time. “The opposition to any economic element, whether deferred or delayed, is going to be so strong that only a purely technical regulation really has any chance of going forward under that scenario,” Nyhus said. “If all relevant alternative fuel options are on the table, (a purely technical measure) could contain incentives for a large cross section of countries around the world, and in theory, this could lead to adoption in November this year,” he added. “But all the stars will need to align, and I think it will be a challenge for that to happen.” Another very real scenario would be flag states representing most of the global tonnage rejecting any proposal that is put forward. The NZF can be blocked if one-third of countries representing over 50% of global tonnage formally object during the adoption process. “In all of these cases, the timeline has really been pushed back significantly,” Nyhus said. “Despite it being theoretically possible to have something in place by November 2028, I think the issues to be solved are so thorny that the IMO will need more time, if an outcome can be negotiated at all. “Entering into force of some version of the regulation in 2029 is optimistic and 2030 is more likely, but I would not be shocked to see things slide even further,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com . 

No clear path to get IMO’s net-zero framework over the line: industry experts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">APMT and TiL will operate the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, respectively, for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts after nullifying the 28-year concession held by CK Hutchison.</div>

APMT and TiL will operate the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, respectively, for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts after nullifying the 28-year concession held by CK Hutchison.

<div class="phx-topic">The terminal subsidiaries of Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) have begun operating the Balboa and Cristobal terminals of the Panama Canal on an interim basis after the Panamanian government late Monday took control of the facilities from the local unit of CK Hutchison Holdings. Maersk’s APM Terminals was given a transitory concession contract for the Balboa terminal on the Pacific side of the canal by the Panama Maritime Authority; MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) was given the same for Cristobal on the Atlantic coast. APMT and TiL will operate the respective terminals for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts. The move to eject CK Hutchison-owned Panama Ports Company came just hours after the government published the Panama Supreme Court’s final ruling nullifying PPC’s 28-year concession, which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-court-voids-ck-hutchison-canal-terminal-leases-6161145">was announced by the court on Jan. 29.</a>PMA officials said the agency decided to award two separate concessions to assess different operating models and improve overall management of the terminals, while the units of Maersk and MSC were chosen because of the cargo volumes the carriers move through the two ports. APM Terminals Panama has paid $26.1 million for its temporary concession, while TiL has paid $15.8 million, according to concession documents. Last month, the PMA indicated that APMT would be awarded the concession for both Balboa and Cristobal. ”We have sought out operators who handle the cargo,” Alberto Alemán Zubieta, head of the PMA transition team and former administrator of the Panama Canal, told a press briefing Monday. A Maersk spokesperson in Panama said about 75% of the cargo moving through Balboa originates from Maersk. ”The decision to contract an operator associated with the owner of most of that cargo helps stabilize the operation and mitigate the most significant risk during the transition to keeping volumes moving,” the spokesperson said. APMT, meanwhile, said in a customer advisory Tuesday it had initiated a “stabilization phase” at Balboa, but hinted at possible disruption at the terminal as it deploys a new operating system. The company said it is aiming “to safeguard the continuity of Panama’s logistics hub, while a new terminal operating system is deployed and operations are progressively reactivated with the least possible disruption.” It gave no timeframe for the launch of the new system or how long any possible cargo disruption could last. Marliz Bermudez, CEO of APM Terminals Panama, said Tuesday the transition phase at Balboa “requires speed and precision so that the port can progressively resume operations once the system installation is completed, along with other operational, audit, training, and verification tasks.” Maersk said it was “closely monitoring the situation based on information provided by the terminal operator and relevant authorities.” Carriers using both the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, in addition to Maersk and MSC, include Cosco Shipping, CMA CGM, Evergreen, Hapag-Lloyd, and Ocean Network Express. MSC and TiL could not immediately be reached for comment on operations at Cristobal. <h3>More threats from Hutchison </h3>Hong Kong-based Hutchison condemned the takeover of the terminals by the Panamanian government and said the awarding of concessions to APMT and TiL was “unlawful.” A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said during a press briefing in Beijing on Tuesday that China “will firmly protect the company’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests.” “The takeover of the two terminals reflects the culmination of a campaign by the Panama state against PPC and the concession contract over the past year,” Hutchison said in a statement. Hutchison’s control of the terminals at either end of the Panama Canal had become the focus of a wider geopolitical spat between the US and China over political influence in the region. Hutchison, which shut down its PPC website following the government takeover, has already threatened legal action against APM Terminals and the Panama government. It also warned that the AMPT takeover at Balboa could harm the relationship between Hutchison and Maersk. While the Panama Supreme Court ruling cannot be reversed, Hutchison’s statement said it’s continuing to consult with legal advisors over launching national and international legal action against Panama and “third parties colluding with them.” It already launched an international arbitration claim in early February against the government over the loss of the terminal concessions.Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

The terminal subsidiaries of Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) have begun operating the Balboa and Cristobal terminals of the Panama Canal on an interim basis after the Panamanian government late Monday took control of the facilities from the local unit of CK Hutchison Holdings. Maersk’s APM Terminals was given a transitory concession contract for the Balboa terminal on the Pacific side of the canal by the Panama Maritime Authority; MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) was given the same for Cristobal on the Atlantic coast. APMT and TiL will operate the respective terminals for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts. The move to eject CK Hutchison-owned Panama Ports Company came just hours after the government published the Panama Supreme Court’s final ruling nullifying PPC’s 28-year concession, which was announced by the court on Jan. 29. PMA officials said the agency decided to award two separate concessions to assess different operating models and improve overall management of the terminals, while the units of Maersk and MSC were chosen because of the cargo volumes the carriers move through the two ports. APM Terminals Panama has paid $26.1 million for its temporary concession, while TiL has paid $15.8 million, according to concession documents. Last month, the PMA indicated that APMT would be awarded the concession for both Balboa and Cristobal. ”We have sought out operators who handle the cargo,” Alberto Alemán Zubieta, head of the PMA transition team and former administrator of the Panama Canal, told a press briefing Monday. A Maersk spokesperson in Panama said about 75% of the cargo moving through Balboa originates from Maersk. ”The decision to contract an operator associated with the owner of most of that cargo helps stabilize the operation and mitigate the most significant risk during the transition to keeping volumes moving,” the spokesperson said. APMT, meanwhile, said in a customer advisory Tuesday it had initiated a “stabilization phase” at Balboa, but hinted at possible disruption at the terminal as it deploys a new operating system. The company said it is aiming “to safeguard the continuity of Panama’s logistics hub, while a new terminal operating system is deployed and operations are progressively reactivated with the least possible disruption.” It gave no timeframe for the launch of the new system or how long any possible cargo disruption could last. Marliz Bermudez, CEO of APM Terminals Panama, said Tuesday the transition phase at Balboa “requires speed and precision so that the port can progressively resume operations once the system installation is completed, along with other operational, audit, training, and verification tasks.” Maersk said it was “closely monitoring the situation based on information provided by the terminal operator and relevant authorities.” Carriers using both the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, in addition to Maersk and MSC, include Cosco Shipping, CMA CGM, Evergreen, Hapag-Lloyd, and Ocean Network Express. MSC and TiL could not immediately be reached for comment on operations at Cristobal. More threats from Hutchison Hong Kong-based Hutchison condemned the takeover of the terminals by the Panamanian government and said the awarding of concessions to APMT and TiL was “unlawful.” A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said during a press briefing in Beijing on Tuesday that China “will firmly protect the company’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests.” “The takeover of the two terminals reflects the culmination of a campaign by the Panama state against PPC and the concession contract over the past year,” Hutchison said in a statement. Hutchison’s control of the terminals at either end of the Panama Canal had become the focus of a wider geopolitical spat between the US and China over political influence in the region. Hutchison, which shut down its PPC website following the government takeover, has already threatened legal action against APM Terminals and the Panama government. It also warned that the AMPT takeover at Balboa could harm the relationship between Hutchison and Maersk. While the Panama Supreme Court ruling cannot be reversed, Hutchison’s statement said it’s continuing to consult with legal advisors over launching national and international legal action against Panama and “third parties colluding with them.” It already launched an international arbitration claim in early February against the government over the loss of the terminal concessions. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Port News

Marine terminals

International ports

Maersk, MSC units begin interim management of Panama Canal terminals

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Hapag-Lloyd said it wants to integrate Zim into the alliance with Maersk, but adding new ports and overlapping coverage means changes to services. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd said it wants to integrate Zim into the alliance with Maersk, but adding new ports and overlapping coverage means changes to services.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services raises questions of how much of Zim’s express, port-direct services will survive under Gemini Cooperation’s transshipment model and to what extent the acquisition will force further changes in trans-Pacific networks, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime AnalysisIntegrating Zim’s services into the Gemini network makes more sense than operating Zim as a separate product, Sea-Intelligence said in a report Sunday. Even though Zim offers a premium product based on its transit times and direct service, Sea-Intelligence said a premium, standalone service confuses the messaging for Gemini customers “Operating premium direct strings outside the alliance effectively positions Hapag-Lloyd in competition with its own shared hub-and-spoke infrastructure, which could potentially draw high-yield cargo away from Gemini’s core network.” Sea-Intelligence said. Adding Zim’s current trans-Pacific services would increase Gemini’s port coverage by 28%, Sea-Intelligence said. In particular, Zim’s network would give Gemini more coverage between origin ports in southeast China, South Korea, and Taiwan to US East Coast ports. Yet offering those additional port calls will introduce more complexity into Gemini’s network, Sea-Intelligence said. Offering the same port coverage to the Gemini network will require “careful product design to avoid undermining customer expectations.”Speaking during a briefing last week after the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">$4.2 billion acquisition of Zim was announced</a>, Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said the approximately 100 vessels controlled by Zim will eventually be integrated into services that Hapag-Lloyd offers alongside Maersk under the Gemini banner. He added that the additional capacity could help Gemini gain market share in certain trade lanes. “It’s very likely to assume that indeed, some of the tonnage that Zim deploys on the east-west trades would also phase into Gemini,” Habben Jansen said. “We think that’s actually a good thing that will help Gemini gain a little bit of scale that will help us to bring unit cost further down.” <h3>‘Structural challenge’ for Gemini</h3>Integrating Zim’s current network would also mean Gemini offering a second Asia service to the Port of Baltimore and providing service to Boston. Sea-Intelligence said that while some services with port overlap could be consolidated, servicing smaller ports might require standalone services that won’t affect Gemini’s reliability. “If this market reach is integrated, Gemini faces a structural challenge: servicing these secondary gateways via transshipment hubs can add transit time on the ocean leg, and it may dilute the faster transit times some legacy Zim customers currently value,” Sea-Intelligence said. Along with Gemini’s network, the acquisition of Zim has the potential to reshape other vessel-sharing arrangements, Sea-Intelligence said. For the past two years, Hapag-Lloyd has offered a jointly-operated Asia-US East Coast service with Wan Hai Lines, the AA7. But Sea-Intelligence said the AA7’s large overlap with existing Zim services suggests “Hapag-Lloyd could exit this joint operation over time.” Zim has its own vessel-sharing agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co. for five services between Asia and the US East and Gulf coasts. Zim and MSC each operate two of the services, while the fifth service is jointly operated. While it would take between six months and a year to dissolve the joint agreement, Sea-Intelligence said the end of the agreement would reduce MSC’s port coverage on Asia-to-US East Coast services by nearly one-third. Sea-Intelligence said it’s likely that MSC will launch a new US East Coast anchor service to compensate for the potential exit of Zim. “If MSC opts not to launch a replacement service, they would be ceding a defined strategic advantage to the potentially expanded Gemini network,” Sea-Intelligence said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Hapag-Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services raises questions of how much of Zim’s express, port-direct services will survive under Gemini Cooperation’s transshipment model and to what extent the acquisition will force further changes in trans-Pacific networks, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis Integrating Zim’s services into the Gemini network makes more sense than operating Zim as a separate product, Sea-Intelligence said in a report Sunday. Even though Zim offers a premium product based on its transit times and direct service, Sea-Intelligence said a premium, standalone service confuses the messaging for Gemini customers “Operating premium direct strings outside the alliance effectively positions Hapag-Lloyd in competition with its own shared hub-and-spoke infrastructure, which could potentially draw high-yield cargo away from Gemini’s core network.” Sea-Intelligence said. Adding Zim’s current trans-Pacific services would increase Gemini’s port coverage by 28%, Sea-Intelligence said. In particular, Zim’s network would give Gemini more coverage between origin ports in southeast China, South Korea, and Taiwan to US East Coast ports. Yet offering those additional port calls will introduce more complexity into Gemini’s network, Sea-Intelligence said. Offering the same port coverage to the Gemini network will require “careful product design to avoid undermining customer expectations.” Speaking during a briefing last week after the $4.2 billion acquisition of Zim was announced , Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said the approximately 100 vessels controlled by Zim will eventually be integrated into services that Hapag-Lloyd offers alongside Maersk under the Gemini banner. He added that the additional capacity could help Gemini gain market share in certain trade lanes. “It’s very likely to assume that indeed, some of the tonnage that Zim deploys on the east-west trades would also phase into Gemini,” Habben Jansen said. “We think that’s actually a good thing that will help Gemini gain a little bit of scale that will help us to bring unit cost further down.” ‘Structural challenge’ for Gemini Integrating Zim’s current network would also mean Gemini offering a second Asia service to the Port of Baltimore and providing service to Boston. Sea-Intelligence said that while some services with port overlap could be consolidated, servicing smaller ports might require standalone services that won’t affect Gemini’s reliability. “If this market reach is integrated, Gemini faces a structural challenge: servicing these secondary gateways via transshipment hubs can add transit time on the ocean leg, and it may dilute the faster transit times some legacy Zim customers currently value,” Sea-Intelligence said. Along with Gemini’s network, the acquisition of Zim has the potential to reshape other vessel-sharing arrangements, Sea-Intelligence said. For the past two years, Hapag-Lloyd has offered a jointly-operated Asia-US East Coast service with Wan Hai Lines, the AA7. But Sea-Intelligence said the AA7’s large overlap with existing Zim services suggests “Hapag-Lloyd could exit this joint operation over time.” Zim has its own vessel-sharing agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co. for five services between Asia and the US East and Gulf coasts. Zim and MSC each operate two of the services, while the fifth service is jointly operated. While it would take between six months and a year to dissolve the joint agreement, Sea-Intelligence said the end of the agreement would reduce MSC’s port coverage on Asia-to-US East Coast services by nearly one-third. Sea-Intelligence said it’s likely that MSC will launch a new US East Coast anchor service to compensate for the potential exit of Zim. “If MSC opts not to launch a replacement service, they would be ceding a defined strategic advantage to the potentially expanded Gemini network,” Sea-Intelligence said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Zim acquisition sets up network changes for Gemini: Sea-Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The $4.2 billion acquisition announced last week does nothing to alter the market’s weak fundamentals, notably soft demand and vessel oversupply, writes analyst John McCauley.</div>

The $4.2 billion acquisition announced last week does nothing to alter the market’s weak fundamentals, notably soft demand and vessel oversupply, writes analyst John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">The ink has barely dried on the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">Hapag-Lloyd tie up with Zim Integrated Shipping Services</a> and there is a view that the enlargement of the container shipping oligopoly will have some far-reaching effect and potentially stem the tide of red ink in carriers’ results. Indeed, in the longer term, this should bring about significant cost savings for the combined HL/Zim entity through procurement and agent network rationalization. However, adding another name or moving one slot higher in the rankings of the biggest carriers will not change the underlying issues facing the industry. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6174595_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Let’s start with demand. Global container freight demand is up and forecast to maintain that performance, which is good overall. However, prospects for the two key trade lanes — the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe — are poor. Trans-Pacific is dire, and without any structural change in the trade, I can see us heading back to $500 rates sooner rather than later. Asia-Europe is benefiting from the China and China + shift to non-US markets, but the fundamentals in European economies indicate this demand surge will be short-lived. The biggest problem is oversupply. With over 30% of the existing global fleet on order, oversupply is a self-inflicted wound. Surely, common sense prevailed in certain boardrooms to foresee the need to better deploy the extraordinary cash piles most carriers possess (although the piles are starting to shrink). In some cases, we can see that using cash flow to mop up charter tonnage in key segments, particularly Panamax and post-Panamax, was a smart move to increase fleet flexibility, but also to keep charter rates high and potentially push out bottom feeders as rates drop and margins erode. However — and the following comments assume there will be no full reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal — the continued desire to add new tonnage alongside the bloated order book seems nonsensical. This will leave very few options for carriers should demand continue to soften. Bear in mind that even without Red Sea resumption, schedule slippages, blank sailings and other current tactics will seem like trying to ride a wakeboard in a tsunami. Anchoring up will solve some immediate supply problems, but only layups will actually take tonnage out of service for an extensive period. Those who remember 2009 and the Eastern Anchorage in Singapore with multiple vessels moored together will get the picture. The compounding oversupply issue is that the trades benefiting from increased demand are not predominantly the trades that suit new tonnage coming out of the shipyards. If a magic wand could be waved, you would order 5,000- and 8,000-TEU ships, and not any bigger. Ordering 14,000-TEU-plus, even with the best intentions of dual-fuel to help the planet, will only exacerbate oversupply. <h3>Strong argument for scrapping </h3>The other supply reduction strategy is scrapping. There is a strong argument for scrapping, particularly older vessels that will come up against regulatory requirements that will prove costlier to implement than the return the vessels will derive. Granted, many will have reached their full depreciation, so are essentially running on operating expenses only. The temptation will be to keep them going, particularly those in the desirable 5,000- to 8,000-TEU range. Two other factors suggest large-scale scrapping is unlikely. The first is that while scrap yards have capacity, they need reservations well in advance given that most vessels in line for scrapping are usually part of a homogeneous order for multiple vessels rather than one-offs. Second, scrapping regulations have become tighter, which will make it more costly to scrap. Scrap prices are also weak, although container vessel scrap prices are at a small premium above dry and wet vessels. Even the E-class Maersk vessels and their (near) equivalents that are at or near 20 years old would still seem a bizarre candidate for scrapping So where does all that leave carriers? Some will hope that the US recovers, and global trade rebalances and tactical supply constraints will suffice. Combined with that will be the knowledge that carriers have about three years of free cash flow cover to ride out the downturn. Others will review their order book and see how they can delay or even withdraw from purchase and delivery. However, the favorable financing terms on offer will make this unlikely. Most will hope a smaller competitor or two will go bust, but that would not stem the vessel glut. And some will look at their playbook and go the acquisition route. But hope is never a good strategy, and a combination of layups and scrapping seems the only viable solution. So the question for this (failed) oligopolistic market is: “Who blinks first?” John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>. </div>

The ink has barely dried on the Hapag-Lloyd tie up with Zim Integrated Shipping Services and there is a view that the enlargement of the container shipping oligopoly will have some far-reaching effect and potentially stem the tide of red ink in carriers’ results. Indeed, in the longer term, this should bring about significant cost savings for the combined HL/Zim entity through procurement and agent network rationalization. However, adding another name or moving one slot higher in the rankings of the biggest carriers will not change the underlying issues facing the industry. Let’s start with demand. Global container freight demand is up and forecast to maintain that performance, which is good overall. However, prospects for the two key trade lanes — the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe — are poor. Trans-Pacific is dire, and without any structural change in the trade, I can see us heading back to $500 rates sooner rather than later. Asia-Europe is benefiting from the China and China + shift to non-US markets, but the fundamentals in European economies indicate this demand surge will be short-lived. The biggest problem is oversupply. With over 30% of the existing global fleet on order, oversupply is a self-inflicted wound. Surely, common sense prevailed in certain boardrooms to foresee the need to better deploy the extraordinary cash piles most carriers possess (although the piles are starting to shrink). In some cases, we can see that using cash flow to mop up charter tonnage in key segments, particularly Panamax and post-Panamax, was a smart move to increase fleet flexibility, but also to keep charter rates high and potentially push out bottom feeders as rates drop and margins erode. However — and the following comments assume there will be no full reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal — the continued desire to add new tonnage alongside the bloated order book seems nonsensical. This will leave very few options for carriers should demand continue to soften. Bear in mind that even without Red Sea resumption, schedule slippages, blank sailings and other current tactics will seem like trying to ride a wakeboard in a tsunami. Anchoring up will solve some immediate supply problems, but only layups will actually take tonnage out of service for an extensive period. Those who remember 2009 and the Eastern Anchorage in Singapore with multiple vessels moored together will get the picture. The compounding oversupply issue is that the trades benefiting from increased demand are not predominantly the trades that suit new tonnage coming out of the shipyards. If a magic wand could be waved, you would order 5,000- and 8,000-TEU ships, and not any bigger. Ordering 14,000-TEU-plus, even with the best intentions of dual-fuel to help the planet, will only exacerbate oversupply. Strong argument for scrapping The other supply reduction strategy is scrapping. There is a strong argument for scrapping, particularly older vessels that will come up against regulatory requirements that will prove costlier to implement than the return the vessels will derive. Granted, many will have reached their full depreciation, so are essentially running on operating expenses only. The temptation will be to keep them going, particularly those in the desirable 5,000- to 8,000-TEU range. Two other factors suggest large-scale scrapping is unlikely. The first is that while scrap yards have capacity, they need reservations well in advance given that most vessels in line for scrapping are usually part of a homogeneous order for multiple vessels rather than one-offs. Second, scrapping regulations have become tighter, which will make it more costly to scrap. Scrap prices are also weak, although container vessel scrap prices are at a small premium above dry and wet vessels. Even the E-class Maersk vessels and their (near) equivalents that are at or near 20 years old would still seem a bizarre candidate for scrapping So where does all that leave carriers? Some will hope that the US recovers, and global trade rebalances and tactical supply constraints will suffice. Combined with that will be the knowledge that carriers have about three years of free cash flow cover to ride out the downturn. Others will review their order book and see how they can delay or even withdraw from purchase and delivery. However, the favorable financing terms on offer will make this unlikely. Most will hope a smaller competitor or two will go bust, but that would not stem the vessel glut. And some will look at their playbook and go the acquisition route. But hope is never a good strategy, and a combination of layups and scrapping seems the only viable solution. So the question for this (failed) oligopolistic market is: “Who blinks first?” John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Hapag-Lloyd’s deal for Zim won’t fix challenges facing container shipping

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 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 FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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 premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Hapag-Lloyd inks new sustainable biofuel deal with DSV

No clear path to get IMO’s net-zero framework over the line: industry experts

Maersk, MSC units begin interim management of Panama Canal terminals