Shipping groups urge caution over proposed US port fees

"Astronomical" cost 

World Shipping Council (WSC) president Joe Kramek, representing the liner shipping sector, opposed the proposed port fees and restrictions on export carriage. 

“These proposed remedies would cause serious harm to wide swaths of the US economy. The path to revitalising the US maritime industry is forward, not backward, through retroactive fees that amount to ex-post facto punishments on ocean carriers,” said the WSC.

The Council quantified the financial impact with specific figures. According to its calculations, the high-end fee impact per container for a six-port call on a 6,623 TEU vessel, operated by a non-Chinese carrier, is “astronomical” compared to current spot rates for major trade routes to and from the US. On the New York-to-Rotterdam route alone, the fee represents 535% of the current spot rate.

Potential impact on US ports

Similar concerns were raised by Chamber of Shipping of America (CSA) president Kathy J Metcalf, who represents 21 US-based companies that own, operate, or charter oceangoing tankers, container ships, and other merchant vessels.

CSA warned that imposing a port fee could lead to port dislocation, with cargo being diverted to Canadian or Mexican ports before being transshipped to the US to avoid the additional charges. Such a shift would harm US ports and the jobs that depend on their operations.

Additionally, according to CSA, smaller ports could face severe consequences, as container ships that currently call at multiple US ports might consolidate their stops to a single location to minimise port fees. This would not only impact the ports that are bypassed but also the local economies, businesses, and jobs that rely on their continued operation.

China unlikely to be affected

Intertanko managing director Tim Wilkins stated that operators impacted by the proposed policy would have specific options. They would either pay the service fee on port calls, phase out Chinese-built vessels from US trade, avoid calls to the US entirely, or seek a service fee remission by using US-built vessels.

Mr Wilkins explained that each of these options could have significant repercussions. Additional costs would ultimately be passed on to consumers, the US market share could decline, and logistical inefficiencies could arise. The reshuffling of trade routes could also lead to reduced competition, while the number of tankers available to serve US ports might decrease.

Summarising these concerns, Mr Wilkins argued that the proposed measures would fail to curb China’s dominance in the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors. Instead, the US and its consumers would bear the highest costs, while China would remain largely unaffected.

Chinese owners call for diplomatic resolution

China Shipowners’ Association (CSA) executive vice-chairman Liu Shanghai emphasised that the international shipping market has long operated under principles of open competition. He cautioned against "policy decisions that are driven by short-term political and economic considerations" at the expense of broader global trade stability.

The CSA representative suggested that the US should seek international cooperation to expand its shipping fleet rather than relying on protectionist measures. He urged US policymakers to engage in "sincere negotiations" with the Chinese government through established frameworks such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the US-China Maritime Transport Agreement to find constructive solutions to the current trade disputes.

Sign up for Riviera’s series of technical and operational webinars and conferences:

• Register to attend by visiting our events page.
• Watch recordings from all of our webinars in the webinar library.