<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In the coming months, US lawmakers will face the important task of choosing to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) or not. 
 </div>

In the coming months, US lawmakers will face the important task of choosing to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) or not.

<div>In the coming months, US lawmakers will face the important task of choosing to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) or not. Those are the only two choices under the Fast Track authority, which forces a straight up or down vote in Congress. Precisely which way Congress will vote is still uncertain. House Democrats have expressed concern about the lack of enforceability of the USMCA’s labor and environmental provisions, and have stated they won’t pass the USMCA legislation until the agreement has more teeth.The Democrats’ concerns aren’t entirely unwarranted. While the enforceability of NAFTA’s provisions were technically executed through the...

In the coming months, US lawmakers will face the important task of choosing to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) or not. Those are the only two choices under the Fast Track authority, which forces a straight up or down vote in Congress. Precisely which way Congress will vote is still uncertain. House Democrats have expressed concern about the lack of enforceability of the USMCA’s labor and environmental provisions, and have stated they won’t pass the USMCA legislation until the agreement has more teeth. The Democrats’ concerns aren’t entirely unwarranted. While the enforceability of NAFTA’s provisions were technically executed through the country-to-country dispute mechanism in Chapter 20 of the agreement, the reality was that Chapter 20 didn’t offer genuine recourse for much of NAFTA’s 25-year history. What exactly needs to be enforced? The impetus to renegotiate NAFTA had much to do with the disparity in labor market conditions between the United States and Mexico. The US president and administration felt Mexico has had the upper hand throughout NAFTA’s history because its workers’ wages were much lower than their U.S. counterparts, partly because Mexican unions did not function independently and rarely secured higher wages and improved working conditions for workers. Those lower wages and deficient work environments meant US manufacturers could flock south of the border to save on labor and production costs and simply import their manufactured goods into the US post-production. The USMCA attempts to create greater balance between American and Mexican labor markets by putting into place requirements that Mexico allow for the establishment of independent unions. But what if Mexico doesn’t live up to its end of the agreement? What’s America’s recourse? Understanding country-to-country dispute resolution Maintaining a country-to-country dispute resolution process within the free trade agreement was a major point of contention in the USMCA negotiations. Washington saw the mechanism as an infringement of US sovereignty while Canada saw it as the only means of impartial dispute resolution between two or more of the NAFTA countries, believing US. national courts would inevitably side with an appellant or defendant from their home country. In the end, the country-to-country dispute mechanism was maintained. However, many in the US criticize the mechanism as being ineffectual. That’s because Chapter 20 has only been invoked three times since NAFTA’s inception and in each case, the presiding panel found in favor of Canada or Mexico. Use of Chapter 20 fell out of favor in 2001 when Mexico launched a dispute against the US for obstructing Mexican sugar producers’ access to the US market for allegedly under-pricing their sugar. The dispute languished in the dispute-settlement system because the U.S. refused to appoint panelists to the bi-national review panel that adjudicates over the dispute, and the matter didn’t get resolved in earnest until the summer of 2017, just before the renegotiation of NAFTA began. Even more problematic is that, according to the language in the dispute-resolution provision, the recommendations of the bi-national panel are not necessarily binding. In other words, even if the panel finds in favor of the United States in a dispute and makes recommendations on how the matter should be resolved, the opposing party doesn’t necessarily have to implement the panel’s recommendations. Instead, it can choose to find another mutually agreeable resolution with the other party, or do nothing at all. If it chooses to do nothing at all, the party with which the bi-national panel found in favor has the option to impose punitive measures. The issue with this approach, however, is that it creates obvious friction between what should be two amicably trading nations. It’s for this reason that disputes between the NAFTA parties have (as an alternative form or recourse) found their way into the World Trade Organization’s dispute-resolution procedures. How can the USMCA’s provisions be made more enforceable? The question that remains then is, what can the Administration do to appease Democrats who fear the USMCA’s enforcement provisions lack teeth and ultimately won’t result in genuine environmental protections and/or labor reform? The most obvious solution would be to change the wording of the dispute-resolution mechanisms to ensure they limit loopholes, are binding and serve as sufficient incentive to meet NAFTA’s requirements. That may seem simple enough, but making such alterations at this stage is no easy feat. It would require the United States Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, to reopen negotiations with Canada and Mexico. There’s no guarantee either party will agree to alterations of the text, and if they do, it’s quite likely they would ask for concessions in exchange that might make the USMCA less attractive to certain industry groups in the United States. The other option would be to find an external enforcement mechanism. Recent media reports have indicated Mr. Lighthizer is considering the use of tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 – the same legislation that’s being used to impose tariffs on China-origin goods – to guarantee compliance with the USMCA’s labor and environmental provisions. The problem with this approach, however, is that the imposition of tariffs under Section 301 will likely be reciprocated in kind as they have been by China (and by Canada and Mexico in response to the steel and aluminum tariffs), leading to not-so-free trade. Either way, Democrats don’t appear reassured by the concept. There are those who suggest Democrats are simply nitpicking on the enforcement provisions because it’s a politically expedient means of preventing the USMCA’s passage and, in turn, robbing the President of a feather in his cap in advance of the 2020 election. If there’s truth to that, it’s likely they’ll find fault with any proposed reform of the USMCA and ultimately vote down the legislation when the time comes. Such an outcome would beg the question: then what? Cora Di Pietro is vice president of Global Trade Consulting at trade-services firm Livingston International. email: cdipietro@livingstonintl.com .

What’s the Issue with Enforcing the USMCA?

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A consortium of six national labor groups, representing thousands of dockworkers in the country, was to launch an indefinite industrial action from Dec. 17 without the deal.</div>

A consortium of six national labor groups, representing thousands of dockworkers in the country, was to launch an indefinite industrial action from Dec. 17 without the deal.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The Indian government has cleared for implementation a tentative wage contract that port authorities hatched with trade unions two months, averting potential supply chain disruptions across major public gateways in the country. A consortium of six national labor groups, representing thousands of dockworkers, <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joc.com%2Farticle%2Findia-dockworkers-threaten-strike-if-wage-deal-reneged-5876187&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ckevin.saville2%40spglobal.com%7Cb9e0b4b21f5f420652af08dd19f8c19f%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C638695278393100956%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=rACrQ8MYQ3JR019iM4aVrtWDExM%2BhQLO9Ss%2Bu8MPFY4%3D&amp;reserved=0">was to launch an indefinite strike from Dec. 17 without the deal.</a>The Indian Ports Association (IPA), a governing body for government port entities, late Wednesday gave member authorities the go-ahead on updated employment contracts, with wage scales revised retroactive to January 2022, as well as enhanced pension entitlements approved for retirees. “Our demands have been met, and we are withdrawing the strike call,” Narendra Rao, one of the union leaders, told the Journal of Commerce. “We plan to hold a joint meeting Thursday to officially inform port authorities accordingly.” Local shipping industry sources welcomed the development. “We commend the swift resolution of the port strike threat, which ensures uninterrupted operations across key ports,” Raju Anthony, COO for liner operations at Mumbai-based ship agent Abrao Group, told the Journal of Commerce. “We were anticipating the strike threat to pass as workers were only pushing for the implementation of a signed agreement,” said a Mumbai-based executive at a European container line who didn’t want to be identified. “It’s indeed helpful for the entire trade spectrum amid lingering challenges linked to the Red Sea crisis and demand headwinds.” Container volumes passing through the 12 Indian government ports in the April-to-November period were up 8% year over year to 8.8 million TEUs, with Nhava Sheva contributing 4.7 million TEUs, according to new data obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Matthew at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bencymathew@gmail.com">bencymathew@gmail.com.</a></div>

The Indian government has cleared for implementation a tentative wage contract that port authorities hatched with trade unions two months, averting potential supply chain disruptions across major public gateways in the country. A consortium of six national labor groups, representing thousands of dockworkers, was to launch an indefinite strike from Dec. 17 without the deal. The Indian Ports Association (IPA), a governing body for government port entities, late Wednesday gave member authorities the go-ahead on updated employment contracts, with wage scales revised retroactive to January 2022, as well as enhanced pension entitlements approved for retirees. “Our demands have been met, and we are withdrawing the strike call,” Narendra Rao, one of the union leaders, told the Journal of Commerce. “We plan to hold a joint meeting Thursday to officially inform port authorities accordingly.” Local shipping industry sources welcomed the development. “We commend the swift resolution of the port strike threat, which ensures uninterrupted operations across key ports,” Raju Anthony, COO for liner operations at Mumbai-based ship agent Abrao Group, told the Journal of Commerce. “We were anticipating the strike threat to pass as workers were only pushing for the implementation of a signed agreement,” said a Mumbai-based executive at a European container line who didn’t want to be identified. “It’s indeed helpful for the entire trade spectrum amid lingering challenges linked to the Red Sea crisis and demand headwinds.” Container volumes passing through the 12 Indian government ports in the April-to-November period were up 8% year over year to 8.8 million TEUs, with Nhava Sheva contributing 4.7 million TEUs, according to new data obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Matthew at bencymathew@gmail.com.

Container Shipping News

Port News

International ports

Longshore labor

Maritime

India averts port worker strike with wage deal ratification

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The facility’s launch customer is known to be Amazon, which will use the strategically located warehouse to provide fulfilment services across the region.</div>

The facility’s launch customer is known to be Amazon, which will use the strategically located warehouse to provide fulfilment services across the region.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk began operations at its giant new warehouse in the northern French town of Denain on Wednesday from which it will provide European fulfilment services for “one of the world’s leading e-commerce companies” — widely known to be Amazon. Although Maersk said it could not divulge the names of its customers at the 75,000-square-meter facility, Amazon has confirmed to French media that it is the launch customer for the strategically located warehouse. “We are delighted to now have our anchor customer as we jointly develop solutions that make a difference both to them and to their end-customers,” Michele Cohoner, Maersk’s regional head of contract logistics in Europe, said in a statement. The new facility is situated near the city of Lille, 109 km (67 miles) from Brussels and 198 km (60 miles) from Paris, and on the banks of the Scheldt River, a key inland transport artery between France and Belgium. With the go-live of the warehouse in Denain, Maersk now offers warehousing and distribution services in 15 European countries that are all connected to its growing global network. Maersk has been trying to pull in a greater share of shipper-direct volume since embarking on its integrated strategy in 2017, making targeted acquisitions in the global e-commerce and contract logistics space to plug gaps in its end-to-end supply chain. The opening of the French warehouse marks yet another step toward the integrated goal and builds on <a href="https://www.joc.com/video/maersk-acquisitions-further-global-integrator-strategy-5659070">the significant acquisitions made by the carrier over the past few years</a>. While the financial performance of Maersk’s contract logistics, warehousing and distribution business that falls under its “Fulfilled by Maersk” segment has continued to improve this year, CEO Vincent Clerc said during a third-quarter earnings call with analysts in October that it <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersks-existing-fleet-size-sufficient-to-handle-short-term-demand-growth-ceo-5782669">remains at a disappointing level</a>. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk began operations at its giant new warehouse in the northern French town of Denain on Wednesday from which it will provide European fulfilment services for “one of the world’s leading e-commerce companies” — widely known to be Amazon. Although Maersk said it could not divulge the names of its customers at the 75,000-square-meter facility, Amazon has confirmed to French media that it is the launch customer for the strategically located warehouse. “We are delighted to now have our anchor customer as we jointly develop solutions that make a difference both to them and to their end-customers,” Michele Cohoner, Maersk’s regional head of contract logistics in Europe, said in a statement. The new facility is situated near the city of Lille, 109 km (67 miles) from Brussels and 198 km (60 miles) from Paris, and on the banks of the Scheldt River, a key inland transport artery between France and Belgium. With the go-live of the warehouse in Denain, Maersk now offers warehousing and distribution services in 15 European countries that are all connected to its growing global network. Maersk has been trying to pull in a greater share of shipper-direct volume since embarking on its integrated strategy in 2017, making targeted acquisitions in the global e-commerce and contract logistics space to plug gaps in its end-to-end supply chain. The opening of the French warehouse marks yet another step toward the integrated goal and builds on the significant acquisitions made by the carrier over the past few years . While the financial performance of Maersk’s contract logistics, warehousing and distribution business that falls under its “Fulfilled by Maersk” segment has continued to improve this year, CEO Vincent Clerc said during a third-quarter earnings call with analysts in October that it remains at a disappointing level . Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Container lines

Forwarding

New Maersk warehouse in France expands European e-commerce coverage

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Oregon gateway is moving closer to becoming a landlord port after it reached a framework agreement with a third-party operator for its only international container terminal.</div>

The Oregon gateway is moving closer to becoming a landlord port after it reached a framework agreement with a third-party operator for its only international container terminal.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Portland has struck a tentative deal with its long-serving stevedore to oversee the Oregon port’s container terminal, which had faced closure this year due to its mounting financial losses. The port on Monday said it reached a framework agreement for Harbor Industrial to become the long-term operator of Portland’s Terminal 6. The framework lays out initial terms of the deal and a timeline, with a final agreement expected to be ready by the summer of 2025. Portland is getting out of the terminal business after <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/portland-plans-to-end-container-business-by-october-5240957">recording losses totaling over $26 million</a> from 2023 through 2024 due to a drop in container volumes and below-market lift rates.The new agreement relieves the port of having to market T6 to ocean carriers, establish lift rates and handle other management responsibilities, deferring those tasks to Harbor Industrial, which now schedules and supervises longshore labor at the port. The deal with Harbor also includes $5 million in stopgap funding from the state to help cover the losses, as well as another $20 million for capital improvements at T6. Oregon has also pledged more money toward maintenance dredging of the Columbia River navigation channel. ”This milestone is a fundamental positive shift in support of the Oregon importers and exporters to ensure an ongoing, reliable and efficient gateway for Oregon businesses,” Tim McCarthy, COO of Harbor Industrial, said in a statement.The Port of Portland hopes to double its current volume to 120,000 containers per year by 2032, with an eventual target of 180,000 containers annually after that.Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Port of Portland has struck a tentative deal with its long-serving stevedore to oversee the Oregon port’s container terminal, which had faced closure this year due to its mounting financial losses. The port on Monday said it reached a framework agreement for Harbor Industrial to become the long-term operator of Portland’s Terminal 6. The framework lays out initial terms of the deal and a timeline, with a final agreement expected to be ready by the summer of 2025. Portland is getting out of the terminal business after recording losses totaling over $26 million from 2023 through 2024 due to a drop in container volumes and below-market lift rates. The new agreement relieves the port of having to market T6 to ocean carriers, establish lift rates and handle other management responsibilities, deferring those tasks to Harbor Industrial, which now schedules and supervises longshore labor at the port. The deal with Harbor also includes $5 million in stopgap funding from the state to help cover the losses, as well as another $20 million for capital improvements at T6. Oregon has also pledged more money toward maintenance dredging of the Columbia River navigation channel. ”This milestone is a fundamental positive shift in support of the Oregon importers and exporters to ensure an ongoing, reliable and efficient gateway for Oregon businesses,” Tim McCarthy, COO of Harbor Industrial, said in a statement. The Port of Portland hopes to double its current volume to 120,000 containers per year by 2032, with an eventual target of 180,000 containers annually after that. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Marine terminals

North American ports

Port of Portland strikes deal with stevedore to operate container terminal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carrier executives who dominate the board of the United States Maritime Alliance tell the Journal of Commerce they are done with what they consider to be an overly passive approach demonstrated in recent months by USMX staff in the face of repeated provocations by ILA leadership.</div>

Carrier executives who dominate the board of the United States Maritime Alliance tell the Journal of Commerce they are done with what they consider to be an overly passive approach demonstrated in recent months by USMX staff in the face of repeated provocations by ILA leadership.

<div class="phx-topic">Container lines, after months of trying to maintain a low profile, are pushing harder on the need for automation at US East and Gulf coast ports as longshore labor refuses to negotiate on the technology issue and the union’s Jan. 15 strike threat nears. The United States Maritime Alliance’s (USMX’s) newfound assertiveness was on display last week in a <a href="https://www.usmx.com/assets/content/public-resources/12-3-24_Port_Modernization_and_Investment_in_Technology.pdf">rejoinder to the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) blaming</a> the contract impasse on rail-mounted gantry cranes sought by carriers: <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5896864_0.1.jpg"></img></div> “Modernization and investment in new technology are core priorities required to successfully bargain a new master contract with the ILA.” The missive was the first issue-focused statement from USMX, which until Dec. 3 had kept its messaging within negotiation updates. In comparison, the ILA has released a fiery video and multiple searing statements, including one even <a href="https://ilaunion.org/usmx-continues-weak-publicity-campaign-against-ila-with-unfair-labor-practices-suit-foreign-shipping-companies-exploiting-american-longshoremen-is-unfair-labor-practice-ila/">knocking USMX’s “weak publicity campaign.”</a> Carrier executives who dominate the board of the USMX tell the Journal of Commerce they are done with what they consider to be an overly passive approach demonstrated in recent months by USMX staff in the face of repeated provocations by ILA leadership. Sources told the Journal of Commerce that USMX staff advised the carriers to lay low and not confront the dockworkers over issues such as pay, productivity and automation even as the ILA castigated them as greedy, foreign-owned and bent on replacing American jobs with automation. Carriers are still smarting from the Biden administration <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/behind-the-scenes-white-house-arm-twisting-got-ila-wage-deal-done-5747241">essentially forcing their group CEOs</a> during an early October conference call to accept a 62% pay increase for dockworkers over a new six-year contract, which ended a three-day strike. “The carriers were assured by USMX that things would work out, that [ILA President Harold] Daggett is only posturing, so they weren’t aggressive in communicating how bad a deal this was,” a knowledgeable source told the Journal of Commerce. “In retrospect, we were advised to stay out of the spotlight, not engage in a fight in the media, [and] allow Harold to sound off unchecked, without resistance.” According to two sources, frustration with that strategy led to recent changes in responsibility among senior staff at USMX. At least among some of the carrier members of USMX, there’s a preference to take a harder line even if that means another ILA strike that is likely to draw in the new Trump administration. Key, at least for some carriers, is the fact that this time around the US presidential election isn’t hanging in the balance as it was in October. Back then, carrier CEOs were not willing to keep the strike going and potentially be exposed as a target for blame for influencing the election outcome. <h3>Gauging the Trump factor </h3>Similar to the Biden administration, President-elect Donald Trump has emphasized the foreign ownership of major container lines. On Oct. 1, the first day of the ILA’s strike, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/harris-trump-dockworkers-strike-00182238">the Trump camp told Politico</a>: “American workers should be able to negotiate for better wages, especially since the shipping companies are mostly foreign flag vessels...” In a Nov. 25 statement featuring a photo of Daggett’s “constructive meeting” with Trump that took place in late 2023, the union boss <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trumps-labor-pick-draws-longshore-and-teamster-praise-but-trucker-ire-5846861">praised the incoming president’s nomination</a> of Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer as US labor secretary. Trump during the ILA’s three-day strike expressed sympathy for the dockworkers who “were decimated by this inflation.” Still, Trump’s labor sympathies aren’t shared by Elon Musk, his adviser and biggest reelection backer financially. Musk on Saturday <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1865426504886137218?s=46">retweeted a video</a> by libertarian pundit John Stossel titled, “America’s Stone Age Ports: How Unions Block Progress.” Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen, who estimates there’s an 80% chance of ILA striking come Jan. 15 due to a lack of an agreement on automation, notes the differing stances of Trump and Musk. “The big uncertainty is that Trump was very much pro-union back in October, while Elon has long been pro-automation,” Petersen said. “Does Trump listen to Elon or follow his natural instinct which is to be the man of the people?” Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Container lines, after months of trying to maintain a low profile, are pushing harder on the need for automation at US East and Gulf coast ports as longshore labor refuses to negotiate on the technology issue and the union’s Jan. 15 strike threat nears. The United States Maritime Alliance’s (USMX’s) newfound assertiveness was on display last week in a rejoinder to the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) blaming the contract impasse on rail-mounted gantry cranes sought by carriers: “Modernization and investment in new technology are core priorities required to successfully bargain a new master contract with the ILA.” The missive was the first issue-focused statement from USMX, which until Dec. 3 had kept its messaging within negotiation updates. In comparison, the ILA has released a fiery video and multiple searing statements, including one even knocking USMX’s “weak publicity campaign.” Carrier executives who dominate the board of the USMX tell the Journal of Commerce they are done with what they consider to be an overly passive approach demonstrated in recent months by USMX staff in the face of repeated provocations by ILA leadership. Sources told the Journal of Commerce that USMX staff advised the carriers to lay low and not confront the dockworkers over issues such as pay, productivity and automation even as the ILA castigated them as greedy, foreign-owned and bent on replacing American jobs with automation. Carriers are still smarting from the Biden administration essentially forcing their group CEOs during an early October conference call to accept a 62% pay increase for dockworkers over a new six-year contract, which ended a three-day strike. “The carriers were assured by USMX that things would work out, that [ILA President Harold] Daggett is only posturing, so they weren’t aggressive in communicating how bad a deal this was,” a knowledgeable source told the Journal of Commerce. “In retrospect, we were advised to stay out of the spotlight, not engage in a fight in the media, [and] allow Harold to sound off unchecked, without resistance.” According to two sources, frustration with that strategy led to recent changes in responsibility among senior staff at USMX. At least among some of the carrier members of USMX, there’s a preference to take a harder line even if that means another ILA strike that is likely to draw in the new Trump administration. Key, at least for some carriers, is the fact that this time around the US presidential election isn’t hanging in the balance as it was in October. Back then, carrier CEOs were not willing to keep the strike going and potentially be exposed as a target for blame for influencing the election outcome. Gauging the Trump factor Similar to the Biden administration, President-elect Donald Trump has emphasized the foreign ownership of major container lines. On Oct. 1, the first day of the ILA’s strike, the Trump camp told Politico : “American workers should be able to negotiate for better wages, especially since the shipping companies are mostly foreign flag vessels...” In a Nov. 25 statement featuring a photo of Daggett’s “constructive meeting” with Trump that took place in late 2023, the union boss praised the incoming president’s nomination of Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer as US labor secretary. Trump during the ILA’s three-day strike expressed sympathy for the dockworkers who “were decimated by this inflation.” Still, Trump’s labor sympathies aren’t shared by Elon Musk, his adviser and biggest reelection backer financially. Musk on Saturday retweeted a video by libertarian pundit John Stossel titled, “America’s Stone Age Ports: How Unions Block Progress.” Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen, who estimates there’s an 80% chance of ILA striking come Jan. 15 due to a lack of an agreement on automation, notes the differing stances of Trump and Musk. “The big uncertainty is that Trump was very much pro-union back in October, while Elon has long been pro-automation,” Petersen said. “Does Trump listen to Elon or follow his natural instinct which is to be the man of the people?” Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Ocean carriers take harder line with ILA as January strike date nears

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Fears that methanol will not be available in the coming years at the scale required to power a growing and thirsty ocean fleet are pushing the order book deeper down the LNG pathway.</div>

Fears that methanol will not be available in the coming years at the scale required to power a growing and thirsty ocean fleet are pushing the order book deeper down the LNG pathway.

<div class="phx-topic">The availability of green fuels to power vessels on the fast-growing dual-fuel order book as they come online over the next few years is “the single biggest worry we have,” according to Hapag-Lloyd’s Rolf Habben Jansen. “In five or 10 years from today, there will be significantly more ships that can sail on green fuel than there is green fuel available,” the Hamburg-based carrier CEO told customers during an online briefing Monday. “That keeps us awake and is why we are prepared to sign offtake agreements with suppliers for longer periods,” Habben Jansen added. “We are talking to various producers about the availability of green fuel, but we see the availability of green fuel as a big problem.” Hapag-Lloyd and Seaspan are converting five 10,100-TEU charter ships to a methanol dual-fuel propulsion system that will be ready in 2026. Maersk <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersks-methanol-ship-conversion-tests-retrofitting-business-case-5822762">retrofitted its first vessel to methanol</a> and returned it to service in November to join the nine 16,592-TEU methanol-capable ships that have so far been delivered from an 18-ship order. Other carriers that will also be hunting for methanol to power the vessels coming off their order books are Ocean Network Express, Evergreen, HMM and Cosco. In mid-November, Cosco Shipping Holdings <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-shareholders-back-22-billion-order-for-12-methanol-fueled-ships-5818358">made a $2.2 billion deal</a> for 12 dual-fuel 14,000-TEU vessels for delivery in 2027. <h3>Urgent moves for supply deals </h3>Carriers have been urgently trying to secure supply deals for the future as their dual-fuel ships are delivered. While the vessels will be able to sail on conventional bunker fuels, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tightening-europe-decarbonization-measures-will-raise-shipper-costs-carriers-5833489">tightening emissions controls by regulators</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/midterm-emissions-plan-to-take-center-stage-at-upcoming-imo-meeting-5731399">a global pricing measure</a> that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) wants in place by next October have lent an urgency to the sourcing of green fuel. Hapag-Lloyd in late November <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-joins-maersk-in-chinese-methanol-supply-deal-5866031">signed an agreement with Chinese energy producer Goldwind</a> for the annual supply of 250,000 tons of green methanol per year from 2026, joining <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-says-gemini-alliance-cargo-bookings-to-open-dec-3-5846853">Gemini Cooperation</a> partner Maersk <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-inks-new-methanol-sourcing-deal-with-chinese-supplier-5234419">that already has a 500,000-tons-per-year green methanol deal</a> with Goldwind. But Steve Esau, COO of LNG multi-sector industry coalition SEA-LNG, said many of the memorandums of understanding that ocean carriers have signed with methanol fuel producers have not yet matured into projects, raising concerns among shipowners. “The big energy suppliers are not really that interested in producing large volumes of green methanol for the shipping industry for various commercial reasons, and there is a realization that the fuel was not going to become available at the scale needed by the shipping industry,” Esau told the Journal of Commerce in a recent interview. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1a054077-7728-4ffd-abb8-b7aff17c3235"></dynamic-object></div>Esau said there was an emerging recognition within the shipping supply chain that methanol was a tiny market. “If you converted methanol into LNG equivalent, you’re looking at a methanol fossil fuel market of 50 million tons, most of it produced and consumed locally,” Esau said. “Compare that to LNG, which is closer to 500 million tons and has infrastructure for another billion tons of regasification capacity. You just don’t have that infrastructure in place for methanol.” The growing methanol supply concerns have seen carriers hedging their bets and directing significant investment toward building vessels capable of sailing on LNG. Alphaliner reports that six of the top 10 ocean carriers now have LNG-capable ships on their order books. That includes Maersk that last week confirmed an order for 20 dual-fuel LNG-capable ships totaling 300,000 TEUs, and Hapag-Lloyd, which last month <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-makes-4-billion-move-down-lng-path-with-24-ship-dual-fuel-order-5787368">announced its preference for LNG-powered vessels</a> with an order for 24 ships. Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) has also decided to move in the direction of LNG, CEO Soren Toft said in October. About 70% of the total 1.7 million TEUs of ship orders made so far this year were for ships capable of sailing on methanol or LNG, with LNG comprising 63% of the new orders, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. In 2023, the methanol-LNG split was 66% in favor of methanol ships, Sea-web data shows. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The availability of green fuels to power vessels on the fast-growing dual-fuel order book as they come online over the next few years is “the single biggest worry we have,” according to Hapag-Lloyd’s Rolf Habben Jansen. “In five or 10 years from today, there will be significantly more ships that can sail on green fuel than there is green fuel available,” the Hamburg-based carrier CEO told customers during an online briefing Monday. “That keeps us awake and is why we are prepared to sign offtake agreements with suppliers for longer periods,” Habben Jansen added. “We are talking to various producers about the availability of green fuel, but we see the availability of green fuel as a big problem.” Hapag-Lloyd and Seaspan are converting five 10,100-TEU charter ships to a methanol dual-fuel propulsion system that will be ready in 2026. Maersk retrofitted its first vessel to methanol and returned it to service in November to join the nine 16,592-TEU methanol-capable ships that have so far been delivered from an 18-ship order. Other carriers that will also be hunting for methanol to power the vessels coming off their order books are Ocean Network Express, Evergreen, HMM and Cosco. In mid-November, Cosco Shipping Holdings made a $2.2 billion deal for 12 dual-fuel 14,000-TEU vessels for delivery in 2027. Urgent moves for supply deals Carriers have been urgently trying to secure supply deals for the future as their dual-fuel ships are delivered. While the vessels will be able to sail on conventional bunker fuels, tightening emissions controls by regulators and a global pricing measure that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) wants in place by next October have lent an urgency to the sourcing of green fuel. Hapag-Lloyd in late November signed an agreement with Chinese energy producer Goldwind for the annual supply of 250,000 tons of green methanol per year from 2026, joining Gemini Cooperation partner Maersk that already has a 500,000-tons-per-year green methanol deal with Goldwind. But Steve Esau, COO of LNG multi-sector industry coalition SEA-LNG, said many of the memorandums of understanding that ocean carriers have signed with methanol fuel producers have not yet matured into projects, raising concerns among shipowners. “The big energy suppliers are not really that interested in producing large volumes of green methanol for the shipping industry for various commercial reasons, and there is a realization that the fuel was not going to become available at the scale needed by the shipping industry,” Esau told the Journal of Commerce in a recent interview. Esau said there was an emerging recognition within the shipping supply chain that methanol was a tiny market. “If you converted methanol into LNG equivalent, you’re looking at a methanol fossil fuel market of 50 million tons, most of it produced and consumed locally,” Esau said. “Compare that to LNG, which is closer to 500 million tons and has infrastructure for another billion tons of regasification capacity. You just don’t have that infrastructure in place for methanol.” The growing methanol supply concerns have seen carriers hedging their bets and directing significant investment toward building vessels capable of sailing on LNG. Alphaliner reports that six of the top 10 ocean carriers now have LNG-capable ships on their order books. That includes Maersk that last week confirmed an order for 20 dual-fuel LNG-capable ships totaling 300,000 TEUs, and Hapag-Lloyd, which last month announced its preference for LNG-powered vessels with an order for 24 ships. Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) has also decided to move in the direction of LNG, CEO Soren Toft said in October. About 70% of the total 1.7 million TEUs of ship orders made so far this year were for ships capable of sailing on methanol or LNG, with LNG comprising 63% of the new orders, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. In 2023, the methanol-LNG split was 66% in favor of methanol ships, Sea-web data shows. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Potential shortage of green fuels ‘keeps us awake’: Hapag-Lloyd CEO

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Use code STSW20 at checkout and save 20% on first year of any annual subscription plan

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 20%

Use code CM24W695 at checkout and upgrade to Gold for just $695! Valid for first year of subscription. Offer ends December 8.

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

CYBER MONDAY SALE EXTENDED

Register today to redeem your Gold subscriber discount!

TPM Discount - Gold

Save 20% on TPM25

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 subscription plan that works best for you

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

20% OFF ON TPM25: Register today and redeem your Gold subscriber discount!

TPM Discount - Gold 

20% OFF ON TPM25

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


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

Upgrade Subscription

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk25

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

Latest News

More News & Analysis

India averts port worker strike with wage deal ratification

New Maersk warehouse in France expands European e-commerce coverage

Port of Portland strikes deal with stevedore to operate container terminal