Container Shipping Quarterly
Special Report
And while the traditional linkage between fuel costs and BAFs has fractured due to the rapid escalation of the war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, according to a Vizion analysis, shippers nonetheless retain a cynical view of the emergency fuel surcharges.
“ Shipping lines always seem to manage to turn a crisis into a cash grab,” was the blunt message from James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum.“ This apparent‘ double dipping’ brings the whole sordid practice of surcharging into further disrepute.”
Emergency bunker adjustment factors( EBAFs) on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense were acceptable for the current contract period ending March 26, said Antonios Rigalos, managing partner of shipper network ShiftX. But going forward, increased bunker costs should be recovered by the quarterly BAF review, he noted.
“ The BAF reviews executed for Q3 will reflect the higher bunker costs for the previous quarter [ March through May ], and an EBAF plus BAF review would create a double charging of customers,” Rigalos said.“ While we understand the situation of carriers and that increased bunker costs have a big impact that somehow needs to be recovered, it needs to be carried out in a fair way and not by double charging BCOs [ beneficial cargo owners ] and clients.”
Several carriers have announced emergency bunker fuel surcharges on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense, but the moves have sparked growing concern from shippers.
An Asia-Europe shipper based in Hong Kong said he negotiated contracts based on the Shanghai
War-related emergency fuel fees range from $ 30 to $ 300 per TEU depending on the carrier and trade. Shutterstock. com
Containerized Freight Index( SCFI) that covers both BAF and EBAF surcharges.
“ We adjust the bunker fuel surcharge bi-monthly and as far as we are concerned, we will fight any additional emergency fuel surcharge from the carriers,” the source said.
Long hauls hit with surcharges
CMA CGM has already upwardly revised its“ emergency fuel surcharge” imposed on March 16 from $ 150 per TEU to $ 265 per TEU on all long-haul trade lanes.
OOCL said it will impose a temporary emergency bunker surcharge( EBS) from March 23 to manage global challenges to fuel availability because the increased costs are“ beyond the scope of existing fuel cost recovery and low sulfur adjustment mechanisms.”
“ Shipping lines always seem to manage to turn a crisis into a cash grab.”
Cosco Shipping has also announced emergency bunker surcharges on various trades between Europe, South America and Africa, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. introduced a temporary emergency bunker surcharge on March 16 that varies from $ 30 per TEU to $ 300 per TEU depending on the trade lane.
Maersk on March 10 announced it would implement an emergency bunker surcharge of $ 200 per TEU on all long hauls“ to safeguard cargo integrity and maintain the stability of our network.”
“ This surcharge covers the impact of fuel availability, cost and mix outside of what is covered in our fossil fuel fee [ FFF ],” the carrier said in a statement.“ This means we are better positioned to have the necessary access to fuel and the ability to move it to necessary locations.”
Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl said the carrier was being forced to take the unprecedented step of filling ships with fuel in the US and Europe and transferring the bunkers to vessels in Asia as supplies at bunkering hubs dried up.
Most of the emergency fuel surcharges will be reviewed by carriers every two weeks, but with the Strait of Hormuz— through which about 20 % of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies move each day— out of bounds to commercial shipping, there is little chance the EBAF will be dropped anytime soon.
The speed with which the fuel surcharges were imposed by carriers made it“ nigh on impossible” for shippers to recover costs from their own customers or suppliers, Hookham told the Journal of Commerce.
“ For smaller businesses, that cash flow hit can be fatal when payments are likely to be late due to late or non-delivery of cargo,” he said, noting that the number of surcharges being introduced made it difficult for shippers to track which ones applied to their shipments.
“ The US got it right when the [ Federal Maritime Commission ] required 30-day notice periods before surcharges
18 Journal of Commerce | April 6, 2026 www. joc. com