AGCNewtral

The global maritime market is experiencing a period of contradiction. Despite a structural overcapacity that could extend until 2030, freight rates have rebounded in recent weeks for reasons that have little to do with actual demand. According to the Drewry World Container Index (WCI), freight rates rose 4% on October 30 to 1,822 USD/FEU, while the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) stabilized near 1,550 points. This increase is not due to an economic recovery, but rather to tactical supply management by the major shipping companies. These companies are implementing General Fare Restoration Initiatives (GRIs) and Blank Sailings (coordinated cancellations of sailings) to create an artificial price spike before the 2026 annual contract negotiations. Direct effects on importers and exporters Recommendations from AGC The message is clear: informed patience and data-driven management will be key to protecting profitability throughout the 2026 cycle.

The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) has gone from being an environmental concept to becoming a fixed and unavoidable cost within the logistics chain. From October 1, 2025, carriers are required to offset 70% of their emissions (up from 40% in 2024). This cost is calculated using a reference value of €71.07/EUA and an exchange rate of 1.16 USD/EUR, and is applied transparently to each route. Impact by container type Refrigerated transport is the most affected, due to its higher energy consumption and emissions. Consequences for competitiveness The EU-ETS introduces an immediate disadvantage for European exporters compared to competitors from countries without this regulation. Furthermore, it is no longer a negotiable surcharge like the BAF: it is now a fixed regulatory cost that must be included in the logistics budget. Recommendations from AGC The ETS is not a passing trend, but a new cost framework that demands transparency, control and long-term strategic vision.

The Red Sea crisis continues to affect international shipping. Far from returning to normal, the situation continues to disrupt the main routes between Asia and Europe, forcing shipping companies to round Africa via the Cape of Good Hope. This detour adds approximately 6,000 km and an average increase of 10 to 15 days in transit time. According to recent data, 46% of Suez Canal traffic has been diverted, while traffic around the Cape has grown by 70%. Direct implications Recommendations from AGC In a context of prolonged instability, planning based on realistic scenarios and maintaining operational flexibility is essential to ensure supply chain continuity.

January 2025 marks a turning point in the structure of global maritime transport. The dissolution of the 2M alliance (Maersk–MSC), which dominated East-West traffic for a decade, opens a new competitive scenario. Both shipping companies are seeking operational autonomy and flexibility to redesign their service networks. While they reorganize their fleets, a period of adjustments and reduced reliability in existing services is expected. At the same time, the new US-China trade agreement (November 2025) is simplifying logistics flows: the reduction of tariffs allows for the recovery of direct routes and reduces dependence on costly transshipment through third countries. Opportunities and risks Recommendations from AGC The end of 2M not only fragments the market, but also opens an opportunity to renegotiate on better terms and strengthen control over the global logistics network.

Port congestion and slowed container turnover increase your logistics costs. Find out why and how to anticipate it. Why have congestion and slow turnover become a global logistical bottleneck? In a world where the capacity of ships continues to grow relentlessly (the delivery of mega-ships with more than 20,000 TEU is becoming increasingly common), many port infrastructures are unable to keep up. As maritime transport experts, at AGC Newtral we have detected that operational efficiency is eroding: key ports face bottlenecks, and this slowness directly and negatively impacts your supply chain. What factors explain this widespread operational slowness? The first factor is clear: the mega-ship. The terminals in Northern Europe and Northeast Asia (for example, Shanghai, Busan) struggle to handle vessels that concentrate massive volumes in a few calls. This concentration requires greater quay capacity, cranes, yards, and pickup trucks. The use of “mega-ships” demands a level of efficiency that many ports cannot achieve. The second factor is the rotation of equipment (empty containers, return transports). The return times of empty containers to the origin (Asia) have lengthened to up to 4 weeks after unloading, compared to the “typical 7-10 days.” This delay consumes the effective stock of equipment at the origin and forces the mobilization of additional containers or the payment of surcharges for shortage. The third factor: port congestion. Recent data show that in certain Asian ports, the average waiting time for a ship until “gate-out” is approximately 10 days. These delays generate knock-on effects: trucks take longer to pick up containers, the yard reaches saturation, cranes have to wait, and the next port call is delayed. What are the implications of this turnover crisis for those who import or export? For you who export or import international goods, the impact is not trivial. Delivery times increase. Capital remains tied up longer in transit or already unloaded but not yet collected. Freight costs may rise, as well as associated costs: delayed storage, surcharges for delays, contract penalties. Additionally, uncertainty makes it more difficult to plan inventory, calculate lead times, or ensure minimum service levels. If you rely on routes that pass through congested ports, you are assuming a hidden (and growing) risk that does not appear on your base freight rate but does affect your TCO (Total Cost of Operation). At AGC Newtral, we believe it is not enough to just know the transportation invoice line: bottlenecks must be mapped, realistic buffers incorporated, and routes diversified if necessary. What do we suggest doing to anticipate and mitigate this problem? Conclusion: it is not just a delay, it is a strategic cost La eficiencia operativa y la rotación de contenedores ya no son problemas menores para las cadenas globales de suministro: son fuentes de coste e incertidumbre estructural. En AGC Newtral creemos que las empresas que integren este análisis en su estrategia logística (y no lo dejen como algo táctico) estarán mejor posicionadas para mantener la competitividad en un entorno cada vez más complejo. Si la infraestructura tarda en ponerse al día, tu cadena debe adaptarse antes que reactuar. Actuar ahora es la clave.

The EU ETS system and the International Maritime Organization regulations impose a permanent surcharge on maritime transport. Find out how to manage it. Why is decarbonization no longer an option but a permanent expense? In recent years, we have observed that the transition towards sustainability in maritime transport is ceasing to be an aspiration and becoming an unavoidable cost. At AGC Newtral, we have detected that the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and IMO regulations are materializing as a fixed cost component for shipping companies, shipowners, and, ultimately, importers and exporters. The adjustment is not in the future: it has already begun. What is causing the increase in environmental costs in maritime transport? First, the legal implementation of the EU ETS in the maritime sector. Starting in 2025, shipping companies will have to surrender emission allowances for 70% of their reported emissions from the previous year, compared to 40% in 2024. This applies to 100% of emissions on trips between EU ports, and to 50% of emissions from international voyages with origin or destination in the EU. Second, the anticipated increase in the price of emission allowances (EUA): due to a limited supply of credits and a clear greenhouse gas reduction target, the cost of producing or transporting goods by sea rises. Third, the regulatory pressure from FuelEU Maritime and the IMO towards more expensive alternative fuels (methanol, ammonia, hydrogen) and reducing carbon intensity in ships. These combined factors make the green surcharge a structural variable, and not simply an “extra” or a temporary additional fee. What implications does it have for companies that export or import? For an exporting or importing company, this surcharge translates into several realities: What do we suggest from AGC Newtral to anticipate and manage this new cost? Review and explicitly negotiate the emission surcharge formula (EMS/ESS): when hiring freight or maritime services, demand transparency on how the shipping company calculates the emission surcharge. Do not accept generic formulas that later turn into unexpected costs. Evaluate ‘green’ transportation partners: consider working with shipping companies that demonstrate leadership in sustainability, invest in efficient fleets, or use alternative fuels. This can be a factor in medium-term cost mitigation. Include the green surcharge in your Total Cost of Operation (TCO) model: do not treat it as an optional extra, but as another fixed variable in your logistics operations. Anticipate scenarios: what happens if the emission right price doubles? And what if the percentage of mandatory emissions occurs earlier than expected? Prepare alternative routes, adjust margins, or negotiate adjustment clauses in your logistics contracts. Conclusion: sustainability ceases to be just a narrative and becomes a cost Maritime transport is undergoing a structural change. The green surcharge is no longer something that can be ignored or postponed; it is a cost that requires action. At AGC Newtral, we believe that those who manage this new component in advance will be in a better position than those who face it reactively. We invite you to align your logistics strategy, costs, and contracts with the new environment. It’s not just about being sustainable: it’s about being competitive.

Tariffs have become a structural risk for exporters and importers. Discover how to anticipate their impact and adapt your logistics strategy. Why are tariffs no longer just an economic barrier but a structural cost that affects the entire supply chain? At AGC Newtral we have observed that in May 2025 up to 77% of industrial exporters indicated import tariffs as their main concern. This figure reveals that we are dealing with more than just a trade friction: it is a factor that influences production, export, transit, and insurance decisions. First, because trade policy has ceased to be a purely tariff-based tool and has become an instrument of geoeconomic pressure. For example, the United States threatened to impose a 15% tariff on imports from the European Union starting August 1, 2025, which confirms how trade blocs are now operating in an environment of greater uncertainty. This evolution causes consequences that go beyond the direct cost of the tariff. When a decline in European exports to the U.S. of around 10% to 15% is anticipated, not only do the revenues of exporting companies decrease, but the logistic capacity structure is also affected: ships that transported return cargoes (backhaul) lose volume, which means that shipping lines have to move empty containers or withdraw ships. This cost is ultimately passed on to routes that might seem unrelated to the conflict, making transportation to Asia or Latin America more expensive. From the perspective of logistics and international maritime transport, this means that exposure to tariff costs must be integrated as a risk variable in the company’s operational model. It is not enough to calculate freight, insurance, and transit times. A serious review should consider: which products are most exposed to future tariffs, in which markets, and which routes or countries of origin could be vulnerable. At AGC Newtral, we recommend the following courses of action to our clients: For companies that export or import goods internationally, the conclusion is clear: tariff risk is no longer an external factor; it is a cost that must be actively managed. At AGC Newtral, we believe that those who anticipate, model, and act on this cost now will be better positioned when the market changes. Anticipating is not optional; it is essential.

War risk premiums (WRP) are no longer a theoretical concept: they have become a structural component of logistical costs. At AGC Newtral, we analyze why this trend threatens the profitability of supply chains and what strategies companies can adopt to mitigate its impact. Why has geopolitical risk become a structural cost? During 2025, attacks in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf have turned an ‘insurable’ risk into an actual cost for shipping companies, traders, and insurers. According to data from Lloyd’s List and Reuters, war risk premiums have increased by up to 60% since June, reaching values of 0.4% of the ship’s hull and machinery in areas such as the Strait of Hormuz. The impact is not marginal: a $100 million ship today pays up to an additional $400,000 per voyage just for insurance. This extra cost is ultimately passed on to the importer, the exporter, and, ultimately, the final consumer. What has caused the escalation in the Red Sea? The campaign of attacks by the Houthis from Yemen has revealed the vulnerability of global maritime trade. Despite containment military operations led by the United States and the United Kingdom, two merchant ships were sunk in July 2025, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of deterrence measures. The most worrying aspect is the expansion of the target risk: since July, attacks are no longer directed solely at ships with an Israeli flag, but at any shipping company operating in ports considered ‘enemy.’ This has caused a domino effect on insurers, who practically penalize all traffic in the region. How does this affect global supply chains? More than 60% of the world’s container fleet has chosen to divert its routes via the Cape of Good Hope, according to data from Drewry Shipping Consultants. This increases Asia-Europe transit times by 10 to 14 days, reduces effective capacity, and distorts freight rates, which rose by 25% in September despite the surplus of available ships. The result is a paradox: more theoretical capacity, but less actual turnover. Supply chains lengthen, inventories increase, and financial flows become strained. What should companies do in the face of this new reality? At AGC Newtral, we believe that companies should incorporate geopolitical risk into their TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) modeling. The base freight rate no longer reflects the real cost of moving goods. We recommend three courses of action: Conclusion: from risk to cost Global maritime trade is facing a paradigm shift. Geopolitical risk has stopped being a probability and has become a tangible economic variable. At AGC Newtral, we work to help companies understand, measure, and manage these risks before they result in losses. Anticipation, now more than ever, is the best investment.

Spot freight rates show an increase in October 2025 without real demand support. At AGC Newtral, we analyze how carriers manage capacity, what it means for your exports and imports, and what strategies you should adopt to avoid falling into the trap of artificial volatility. Why are spot freight rates rising despite weak actual demand? This question occupies us today at AGC Newtral because the global maritime market is going through a phase full of contradictions: indices such as the SCFI (Shanghai Shipping Exchange) or Drewry’s WCI have broken a prolonged downward trend and are beginning a rebound towards October 2025, although behind this there is no solid growth in demand. For example, a value of 1,403.46 points is recorded in the container freight index for the end of October. What drives this phenomenon? First of all, the active management of supply by the major shipping alliances. Carrier groups (such as 2M Alliance, THE Alliance, and Ocean Alliance) increasingly resort to the mechanism of blank sailings (intentionally canceled voyages) to remove capacity from the market and thus contain the fall in rates. In 2025, this strategy has intensified and become more coordinated. Secondly, persistent congestion at ports and vessel idling contribute to the “actual usable capacity” being lower than the theoretical capacity. According to a cancellation tracker by Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, between weeks 44 and 48 of 2025, approximately 7% of scheduled departures on East-West routes were withdrawn. Thirdly, although actual demand remains moderate —for example, year-on-year import-export growth in China is estimated at 5.7% in the first four months of 2025— the volume is still far from justifying the recent tariff rebound. This micro-recovery in volume is being used by carriers as an excuse to manipulate the market. What are the implications for exporters and importers? From our experience at AGC Newtral, we see three major challenges: So, what do we suggest you do? At AGC Newtral, we believe that this situation requires moving from an approach of “waiting for freight rates to drop” to an approach of “managing volatility as a structural cost.” The contradiction of spot freight (rising without real demand) should not be mistaken for a market recovery: it is, rather, a strategy for balancing supply. As an exporter or importer, you must anticipate, not react. When rates rise due to structural reasons and not because of demand, the key is your ability to adapt, diversify, and maintain visibility. If you don’t have it, you will be paying a higher price without having a real advantage. In short: the artificial volatility of the spot freight is a wake-up call. And well-planned action is your best response.

Dear customers, We inform you that on January 1, 2023, the tax on non-reusable plastic containers came into force. The purpose is to promote the prevention of the accumulation of non-reusable packaging and promote the recycling of plastic waste, contributing to the circular economy of this material. In accordance with the regulations, any product intended to provide the function of containing, protecting, handling, distributing and presenting merchandise will be considered packaging. The tax rate will be €0.45 per kg of non-recycled plastic and will apply to all imports into the EU. The % of recycled plastic exempt from payment must be accredited by means of a certificate in compliance with the UNE-EN 15343:2008 Standard, issued by an accredited certifying entity. We inform you that for all imports to the EU that contains plastic material for their packaging, must detail in the invoice how many kgs. of recycled and non-recycled plastic the merchandise contains. That document must be signed, sealed and dated. In case that the merchandise does not contain plastic, it must be specified. In the following link you will find all the information about it. Sincerely, The AGC Newtral team.