COVID-19 and maritime transport: Impact and responses

Document Type

Publication

Product Taxonomy

Transport and Trade Facilitation

Sitemap Taxonomy

Transport and Trade Logistics

COVID-19 response and recovery

UNDA Project 2023X: Transport and trade connectivity in the age of COVID-19

Thematic Taxonomy

Trade Facilitation

Maritime transport

Published Date

Tue, 23/03/2021 - 12:00

Symbol

UNCTAD/DTL/TLB/2021/1

Files

File

dtltlb2021d1_en.pdf

Language

English

Restricted Document

Off

Document text

TA ITED ATIO AT COVID-19 Maritime Transport Impact Responses TRANSPORT AND TRADE FACILITATION Series 15TRA TR FA ILITATIO eries 15 COVID-19 aritim Transport Im pact Responses AT COVID-19 Maritime Transport Impact Responses TRANSPORT AND TRANSPORT AND TRADE FACILITATIONTRADE FACILITATION Series 15 Geneva, 2021 © 2021, United Nations work open access, complying Creative Commons licence created intergovernmental organizations, http://creativecommons.org/licenses//3.0/igo/. findings, interpretations conclusions expressed authors necessarily reflect views United Nations officials Member States. designations employed presentation material map work imply expression opinion whatsoever part United Nations legal status country, territory, city area authorities, delimitation frontiers boundaries. Photocopies reproductions excerpts allowed proper credits. publication formally edited. United Nations publication issued United Nations Conference Trade Development. UNCTAD/DTL/TLB/2021/1 eISBN: 978-92-1-604012-3 Print ISSN: 2708-1672 Online eISSN: 2708-1680 3 Acknowledgements present report output produced Phase maritime supply chain component United Nations Development Account (UNDA) project “Transport trade connectivity age pandemics: Contactless, seamless collaborative UN solutions”. report prepared Athanasios . Pallis (consultant), guidance Shamika . Sirimanne, Director Division Technology Logistics UNCTAD. benefited substantive contributions Jan Hoffmann, Frida Youssef, Hassiba Benamara Ahmad Ayoub, Trade Logistics Branch, Division Technology Logistics. extensive published information, section responses adjustments introduced ports benefited insights generated part discussions documents produced COVID-19 Task Force International Association Ports Harbors (IAPH). , builds findings reported issues publication: Notteboom . Pallis .. (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Port Economic Impact Barometer. information, contact Transport Section Trade Logistics Branch Division Technology Logistics transport.section@unctad.org visit UNCTAD website https://unctad.org/en/Pages/DTL/TTL/Infrastructure--Services.aspx. mailto:transport.section@unctad.org https://unctad.org/en/Pages/DTL/TTL/Infrastructure--Services.aspx 4 Contents LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................. 5 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................... 6 ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................................. 8 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 9 CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 10 COVID-19 IMPACT ON MARITIME TRADE AND PORT CALLS............................................................. 10 1.1 COVID-19 IMPACTS ON GLOBAL TRADE FLOWS...........................................................................10 1.2 CHANGES IN MARITIME TRADE: REDUCED PORT CALLS ..............................................................13 1.3. KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED.......................................................................................25 APPENDIX – DETAILED DATA ON SHIP PORT CALLS WORLDWIDE....................................................26 CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 34 IMPLICATIONS FOR LINER SHIPPING CONNECTIVITY ...................................................................... 34 2.1 TRENDS IN LINER SHIPPING CONNECTIVITY .................................................................................34 2.2 LINER SHIPPING CONNECTIVITY IN SIDS.......................................................................................37 2.3 CONTAINER PORTS CONNECTIVITY BY REGION............................................................................40 2.4 KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED........................................................................................46 APPENDIX II – LINER SHIPPING CONNECTIVITY IN SELECTED PORTS..................................................47 CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 56 RESPONSE MEASURES ACROSS THE MARITIME SUPPLY CHAIN ....................................................... 56 3.1 PORTS ..........................................................................................................................................56 3.2 INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SHIP AND SHORE-BASED PERSONNEL.................................................62 3.3 SHIPPING OPERATIONS................................................................................................................64 3.4 LANDSIDE OPERATIONS ...............................................................................................................67 3.5 SUPPLY CHAINS ............................................................................................................................68 3.6 DIGITALISATION ...........................................................................................................................69 3.7 BACK TO BUSINESS.......................................................................................................................70 3.8 KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED........................................................................................72 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 74 5 List Figures Figure 1. Trends global trade (Percentage change)................................................................................................11 Figure 2. Global trade region 2020 (Percentage change 2019)..................................................................12 Figure 3. Total number ship calls worldwide (2019-2020)....................................................................................13 Figure 4. Total number ship calls worldwide month, 2020 (Percentage change 2019).............................14 Figure 5. Total number ship calls worldwide, ship type 2020 (Percentage change 2019)......................14 Figure 6. Total number ship calls region 2020 (Percentage change 2019) ............................................15 Figure 7. Total number ship calls SIDS ship type (2020-2019) ....................................................................16 Figure 8. Percentage ports ship calls, Week 15-Week 29, 2020 ..............................................................17 Figure 9. Containerized maritime transport, 2020 (Percentage ports affected blank sailings) ...........................19 Figure 10. Trends fleet deployment, Q1 2019 -Q2 2020 (Index: Q1 2019 = 100)..................................................36 Figure 11. SIDS liner shipping connectivity components..........................................................................................37 Figure 12. Liner shipping connectivity port Shanghai.................................................................................47 Figure 13. Liner shipping connectivity port Singapore................................................................................47 Figure 14. Liner shipping connectivity port Ningbo....................................................................................48 Figure 15. Liner shipping connectivity port Hong Kong .............................................................................48 Figure 16. Liner shipping connectivity Busan port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019).............................................................................................................................................................48 Figure 17. Liner shipping connectivity Dubai port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019).............................................................................................................................................................49 Figure 18. Liner shipping connectivity Tanger Med port ......................................................................................49 Figure 19. Liner shipping connectivity port Lagos......................................................................................49 Figure 20. Liner shipping connectivity Mombasa port..........................................................................................50 Figure 21. Liner shipping connectivity port Durban....................................................................................50 Figure 22. Liner shipping connectivity port Rotterdam...............................................................................50 Figure 23. Liner shipping connectivity port Antwerp..................................................................................51 Figure 24. Liner shipping connectivity Hamburg port ..........................................................................................51 Figure 25. Liner shipping connectivity Bremerhaven port ....................................................................................51 Figure 26. Liner shipping connectivity port Piraeus....................................................................................52 Figure 27. Liner shipping connectivity Felixstowe port ........................................................................................52 Figure 28. Liner shipping connectivity port Marsaxlokk.............................................................................52 Figure 29. Liner shipping connectivity Colon port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019).............................................................................................................................................................53 Figure 30. Liner shipping connectivity port Santos .....................................................................................53 Figure 31. Liner shipping connectivity port Los Angeles............................................................................53 Figure 32. Liner shipping connectivity port Long Beach ............................................................................54 Figure 33. Liner shipping connectivity port York Jersey......................................................54 Figure 34. Liner shipping connectivity port Melbourne ..............................................................................54 Figure 35. Liner shipping connectivity port Sydney....................................................................................55 Figure 36. Proportion ports reporting shortage port-related workers, Weeks 15-27, 2020 ..............................61 Figure 37. Ports reporting hinterland transport delays compared normal activity ..................................................67 6 List Tables Table 1. Global trade 2020 (Percentage change 2019)...................................................................................11 Table 2. Global trade sector 2020 (Percentage change 2019)....................................................................12 Table 3. Total number ship calls region (2020-2019).......................................................................................15 Table 4. Total number ship calls type economy country grouping (2020-2019)....................................16 Table 5. Total number ship calls SIDS ship type (2020-2019) .....................................................................17 Table 6. Container ship calls region (2020-2019).................................................................................................20 Table 7. Container ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) ..........................................................20 Table 8. Dry bulk ship calls region (2020-2019) ..................................................................................................20 Table 9. Dry bulk ship calls type economy country grouping (2020-2019) ................................................21 Table 10. Break-bulk ship calls region (2020-2019).............................................................................................21 Table 11. Break-bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) ......................................................21 Table 12. Wet bulk ship calls region (2020-2019)................................................................................................22 Table 13. Wet bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) .........................................................22 Table 14. LNG ship calls region (2020-2019) ......................................................................................................22 Table 15. LNG ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019)................................................................22 Table 16. LPG ship calls region (2020-2019).......................................................................................................23 Table 17. LPG ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) ................................................................23 Table 18. Ro/Ro ship calls region (2020-2019)....................................................................................................24 Table 19. Ro/Ro ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019)..............................................................24 Table 20. Passenger ship calls region (2020-2019) ..............................................................................................24 Table 21. Passenger ship calls type economy (2020-2019)...............................................................................24 Table 22. Container ship calls (2020-2019) ..............................................................................................................26 Table 23. Container ships call region (2020-2019)...............................................................................................26 Table 24. Container ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) ........................................................26 Table 25. Break-bulk ship calls (2020-2019) ............................................................................................................27 Table 26. Break-bulk ship calls region (2020-2019).............................................................................................27 Table 27. Break-bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) ......................................................27 Table 28. Dry bulk ship calls (2020-2019)................................................................................................................28 Table 29. Dry bulk ship calls region (2020-2019) ................................................................................................28 Table 30. Dry bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019)..........................................................28 Table 31. Wet bulk ship calls (2020-2019) ...............................................................................................................29 Table 32. Wet bulk ship calls region (2020-2019)................................................................................................29 Table 33. Wet bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) .........................................................29 Table 34. LNG ship calls (2020-2019)......................................................................................................................30 Table 35. LNG ship calls region (2020-2019) ......................................................................................................30 Table 36. LNG ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019)................................................................30 Table 37. LPG ship calls (2020-2019) ......................................................................................................................31 Table 38. LPG ship calls region (2020-2019).......................................................................................................31 Table 39. LPG ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) ................................................................31 Table 40. Passenger ship calls (2020-2019) ..............................................................................................................32 Table 41. Passenger ship calls region (2020-2019) ..............................................................................................32 Table 42. Passenger ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) ........................................................32 Table 43. Ro/Ro ship calls (2020-2019) ...................................................................................................................33 Table 44. Ro/Ro ship calls region (2020-2019)....................................................................................................33 Table 45. Ro/Ro ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019)..............................................................33 Table 46. Trends liner shipping connectivity components ...............................................................................35 7 Table 47. Trends liner shipping connectivity components ...............................................................................35 Table 48. Atlantic Indian Ocean SIDS liner shipping connectivity components..................................................38 Table 49. Caribbean SIDS liner shipping connectivity components ..........................................................................39 Table 50. Pacific Ocean SIDS liner shipping connectivity components.....................................................................40 Table 51. Liner shipping connectivity major Asian container ports .......................................................................41 Table 52. Liner shipping connectivity major African container ports ....................................................................42 Table 53. Liner shipping connectivity major container ports Europe ................................................................43 Table 54. Liner shipping connectivity major container ports Americas .......................................................44 Table 55. Liner shipping connectivity major container ports Oceania ...............................................................45 Table 56. Surcharges increases Pacific SIDS shipping costs .....................................................................66 8 Abbreviations AIS: Automatic Identification System EU: European Union GDP: Gross domestic product HPA: Hamburg Port Authority IAPH: International Association Ports Harbors ICS: International Chamber Shipping IMF: International Monetary Fund ILO: International Labour Organization IMO: International Maritime Organization ISC: Indian subcontinent LDC: Developed Countries LNG: Liquified natural gas LPG: Liquified petroleum gas MDoH: Maritime Declaration Health MSC: Mediterranean Shipping Company PAV: Port Authority Valencia Pax: Passenger ship PMP: Port Management Programme PCS: Port Community System Ro/Ro: Roll /Roll SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals SIDS: Small Island Developing States SoT: Suspension Transit SW: Single Window ULCSs: Ultra-Large Container Ships zation WFP: World Food Programme WHO: World Health Organization WPSP: World Port Sustainability Program 9 INTRODUCTION Maritime transport underpins global supply chain linkages economic interdependency shipping ports estimated handle 80 cent global merchandise trade volume 70 cent . result, disruptive factors pandemics occur, sector works transmission channel sends shockwaves supply chains regions. Disrupted transport networks supply chains significantly undermine world trade economic activity. developing countries playing large role global maritime transport trade, vulnerable economies small island developing states (SIDS) depending heavily maritime transport livelihood access global marketplace, safeguarding integrity maritime transport chain sustainable development imperative. SIDS burdened disproportionately high transport costs shipping connectivity making trade uncompetitive costly. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) triggered global health economic crisis wide-ranging implications maritime transport trade. Restrictions introduced response pandemic caused disruptions affecting ports, shipping, supply chains. industries faced challenges supply chain raw material shortages, lead time issues, ocean blank sailings, port closures, reduced working hours ports, equipment, labor shortages, truck/transport capacity constraints. obstacles undermine smooth movement trade flows supply chain operations significantly erode transport services trade liberalization trade facilitation gains achieved years. longer-term impact COVID-19 outbreak fully understood, indicators pointing significant challenges sector. differ depending maritime transport segment (.., container, bulk, reefer, tanker) transport operation domestic international. vary region, level development, state prior preparedness shocks disruptions. Countries high share global chain participation vulnerable supply chain disruptions.1 Countries higher shares chain participation vulnerable. 2 disproportionately negative impact vulnerable economies SIDS landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) developed countries (LDCs) logistical developmental challenges significant, detrimental sustainable development aspirations. Strengthening capacity countries anticipate recover disruptions affecting maritime supply chain crucial. requires good understanding COVID-19 affected sector, including challenges faced solutions adopted. , building broad mandate field transport trade facilitation, UNCTAD carried preliminary assessment impacts COVID-19 disruption maritime supply chain trade 2020. assessment articulated issues: • Impacts COVID-19 maritime supply chain challenges faced. • Response measures introduced relevant stakeholders. • Lessons learned implications maritime supply chain future. background, Chapters 1 2 present report describe impacts pandemic maritime trade flows, ship calls, liner shipping connectivity 2020. Chapter 3 highlights relevant responses adjustments port level stakeholders maritime supply chain cope disruption maintain business continuity, time, protecting workers ensuring timely delivery essential goods crisis. assessment generated key findings identified lessons good practices leveraged develop guidance tools view greater maritime supply chain resilience preparedness face shocks disruptions. 1 World Trade Organization (2019). World Trade Statistical Review. Geneva. 2 Ojala Lauri (2020). impact COVID 19 global supply chains transport sector. PowerPoint presentation. 1 April. 10 Chapter 1 COVID-19 IMPACT ON MARITIME TRADE AND PORT CALLS disruption global maritime transportation networks -reaching implications highly globalized world economy. crises COVID-19 pandemic arise, allowing continued port access commercial ships ensures world continues function maritime trade persistently delivering world’ food, energy, raw materials, manufactured goods components – including vital medical supplies. , pandemic spread sequenced manner regions, keeping maritime transport moving trade flowing disruption challenging. section examines impacts pandemic related disruptions maritime trade flows port calls, focus developing countries SIDS. 1.1 COVID-19 IMPACTS ON GLOBAL TRADE FLOWS COVID-19 pandemic affected global trade flows unprecedented speed scale. pandemic, access essential goods medical items secured largely ability maritime supply chain quickly adapt. UNCTAD estimates global merchandise trade fallen 5 cent quarter 2020 expects deeper contraction 27 cent quarter.3 full year, UNCTAD expects drop 20 cent. World Bank noted merchandise trade appeared bottomed April, falling 20 cent year year, 10 cent decline March. 4 trade contraction caused COVID-19 deeper observed financial crisis 2008- 2009 (Figure 1). Global trade performance uneven (Figure 2) suggests sharpest year--year downturn April place Middle East, registered trade declines 40 cent. Trade collapsed -Saharan Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, North Africa, North America, European Union (EU 27), declaration pandemic World Health Organization (WHO) mid-March 2020. Declines East Asia Pacific trade severe, exports registering 7 cent decrease Q1 2020 4 cent April. April, China appears performed major economies, registering modest growth exports. , data 2020, China’ imports exports fell 8 cent.5 trade slowdown visible developing developed countries, trade developing countries, imports, appears fallen faster (Table 1). decline exports developing countries reflect reduced demand destination markets, falling imports driven suppressed demand factors exchange rate movements, concerns debt shortage foreign currency. , continued lockdowns Latin America, forecasts increasingly pointing rapid deterioration trade developing countries.6 3UNCTAD (2020). Global Trade Update. June. 4 World Bank (2020). COVID-19 Trade Watch #3 - Signs Recovery 29 June. 5 UNCTAD calculations based national statistics; Statistics April preliminary based limited number countries. Data excludes intra-EU trade. details : UNCTAD (2020). Global Trade Update. June. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcmisc2020d2_en.pdf. 6 UNCTAD (2020). Review Maritime Transport 2020 (forthcoming). Geneva York. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcmisc2020d2_en.pdf 11 Figure 1. Trends global trade (Percentage change) ). Table 1. Global trade 2020 (Percentage change 2019) Q1 2020 April 2020 Import Export Import Export Developed Countries -6% -3% -10% -14% Developing Countries -2% -7% -19% -18% South-South Trade -2% -14% Source: UNCTAD (2020). Global Trade Update. June (https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspxOriginalVersionID=2392). Note: Statistics April preliminary based limited number countries. Data excludes intra-EU trade. shown Table 2, sectors negatively affected months 2020. Variations sectors reflect reduced demand supply-side disruptions. quarter 2020, Textiles Apparel declined 12 cent. Office Machinery Automotive sectors fell 8 cent. contrast, international trade Agri-food sector, volatile, grew 2 cent. Trade Transport Equipment Fuels fell , 30 cent 50 cent April. Sharp contractions Energy trade (-40 cent) Automotive Products (-50 cent) recorded. , trade Office Machinery appears rebounded April, largely China’ positive export performance. expected, trade Essential goods recorded modest increase pandemic.7 store closures major consuming markets, suppressed demand induced major apparel brands reportedly delay cancel orders. Suppliers garment-producing countries faced order cancellations, reduced order volumes extended payment terms, resulted reduce operations stop altogether. standard practice brands pay products shipped, order put hold cancelled, payments held cancelled. brands reportedly asked discounts orders shipped.8 precise trajectory economic recovery remains uncertain. Recovery depend pandemic’ evolution capacity economies quickly recover lockdown measures slow COVID-19 outbreak. 7UNCTAD (2020). UNCTAD Global Trade Update. June. 8 additional information, https://www.workersrights.org/issues/COVID-19/tracker. Accessed 24 June 2020. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspxOriginalVersionID=2392 https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspxOriginalVersionID=2392 https://www.workersrights.org/issues/covid-19/tracker 12 Figure 2. Global trade region 2020 (Percentage change 2019) Source: UNCTAD (2020). Global Trade Update. June (https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspxOriginalVersionID=2392). Notes: UNCTAD calculations based national statistics; Statistics April preliminary based limited number countries. Data excludes intra-EU trade. Table 2. Global trade sector 2020 (Percentage change 2019) Q1 2020 April 2020 Agri-food 2% -2% Automotive -8% -49% Chemicals 0% -14% Communication Equipment -6% -4% Electrical Machinery -4% -13% Energy 5% -39% Machinery -8% -11% Materials Ore -2% -7% Office Machinery -8% 8% Precision instruments -3% -14% Textiles Apparel -11% -6% Source: UNCTAD (2020). Global Trade Update. June (https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspxOriginalVersionID=2392). Notes: UNCTAD calculations based national statistics; Percentage world trade year--year. Q1 estimated HS6 digits data China, EU United States, April estimated China United States data. Data excludes intra-EU trade. 2020 marked widespread lockdowns, travel restrictions, fast-rising unemployment, government rescue packages oil stock market crashes. year remains highly uncertain consensus full year gross domestic product (GDP) single digit decline, expectations muted recovery lockdowns lifted. June 2020, International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected global GDP contraction 4.9 cent 2020.9 performance 2021 depend ability outbreak, progress search vaccine, effectiveness stimulus packages, impact consumer habits, government debt-tackling policies. Current GDP forecasts scenarios 2021 range -2 cent +6 cent.10 9 International Monetary Fund (2020). World Economic Outlook Update. June 2020. 10 Damas Philip Heaney Simon (2020). Covid-19 container shipping market operational issues update. Drewry Special Webinar. 14 2020. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspxOriginalVersionID=2392 https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspxOriginalVersionID=2392 13 1.2 CHANGES IN MARITIME TRADE: REDUCED PORT CALLS Automated Identification System (AIS) data track trace ship movements, provide real-time information maritime transport trade motion. helps fill existing data gaps traditional data sources methods rely national official statistics produced delay. tracking ship calls, AIS data identify underlying trends early stage timely manner. Insights gained enables quick analyses key variables helps improve understanding short-term anticipate potential longer-term structural shifts. MarineTraffic’ AIS data weekly port calls 24 weeks 2020, provide good indication magnitude disruption resilience level maritime supply chain. key trends ship type, geographical region type economy set .11 AIS data proxy inform trends economic activity, recognized data inherent limitations, including terms coverage. , indicative underlying trends, insights derived data interpreted care calibrated official statistics mainstream data sources. 24 weeks 2020, global ship calls diminished 8.7 cent, 1.1 million calls recorded 24 weeks 2019. decline occurred Week 12 2020, COVID- 19 characterized pandemic (Figure 3). quarter, variations ship calls marginal. picture changed dramatically countries started impose economic social restrictions lockdowns. quarter, number calls fell 17 cent, 95,206 calls period 2019. Figure 3. Total number ship calls worldwide (2019-2020) Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Weeks 13 16, total number ship calls declined 13.2 cent (Figure 4). drop 15.4 cent observed weeks (Weeks 17 20). decline Week 21 Week 24 stood -20.8 cent compared 2019. trend reverse weeks June 2020.12 picture emerges port calls cargo type (Figure 5). minor decline 1.1 cent Q1 2020, containership port calls fell 5.8 cent . Port calls dry bulks fell rate containerships. , port calls wet bulk carriers fell 6.3 cent quarter. time, port calls LNG LPG carriers dropped slower rates 2.3 cent 3.2 cent, . LNG LPG electric power plants household energy purposes affected widespread lockdown economies. decline deeper case break bulk ships, reaching -8.5 cent compared 2019. 11 Calculations based data MarineTraffic (www.marinetraffic.). Aggregated figures derived combination AIS data port mapping intelligence MarineTraffic, covering ships 5000 GT . arrivals account measure number port calls. 12 Notteboom Theo Pallis . Athanasios (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-10 Port Economic Impact Barometer. .9. Antwerp: IAPH- WPSP. June. 537’746 575’586 536’567 480’380 400’000 450’000 500’000 550’000 600’000 Q1 Q2 2019 2020 http://www.marinetraffic./ 14 Port calls Ro/Ro ships significant reached -22.8 cent quarter. large contraction contributed 13.8 cent decline total number port calls ship types 2020. Figure 4. Total number ship calls worldwide month, 2020 (Percentage change 2019) Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic; Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary; based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24; compared weeks 2019. Passenger ships affected . nature COVID-19 pandemic, consequent lockdowns countries cities reduction travel, major factors temporary suspension coastal shipping services countries. time, cruise shipping ceased operations worldwide. April, passenger ship calls cancelled. result, Q2 2020, total number global passenger ship calls 17 cent year . Figure 5. Total number ship calls worldwide, ship type 2020 (Percentage change 2019) Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. - - - 2.5% 8.1% 1.1% --5.8% -8.9% -5.8% -6.3% -2.3% -3.2% -22.8%-25.00% -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% Containers Break Bulk Dry Bulk Wet Bulk LNG LPG RO/RO Q1 Q2 15 1.2.1 Ship calls region pandemic’ impact maritime supply chain varied significantly region (Table 3 Figure 6). Europe Mediterranean largest decline calls drop 13.9 cent 24 weeks 2020, compared period 2019. late June 2020, Latin America North America recorded similar decline -11.7 cent. drop calls -Saharan Africa stood -9.7 cent, ship calls -East, Gulf Indian -continent (ISC) experienced moderate declines (Figure 7). Table 3. Total number ship calls region (2020-2019) ALL Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & Indian SC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 24.128 418.531 334.405 60.108 66.540 88.507 24.728 Calls 2019 27.523 485.882 334.776 62.143 75.394 100.242 27.372 Total -12,3% -13,9% -0,1% -3,3% -11,7% -11,7% -9,7% Q1 -14,3% -1,4% 5,8% 5,6% -11,5% -0,3% -13,4% Q2 -9,9% -25,0% -5,6% -11,9% -12,1% -21,1% -5,2% Weeks 1-4 -19,4% 0,5% 10,9% 6,2% -16,8% -0,3% -21,0% Weeks 5-8 -19,4% -0,9% 0,9% 4,1% -13,3% -0,2% -18,0% Weeks 9-12 -2,0% -3,7% 5,6% 6,5% -3,0% -0,4% 2,2% Week 13-16 -12,9% -23,0% 0,9% -6,5% -12,7% -16,7% -8,9% Weeks 17-20 -6,8% -24,5% -5,0% -10,9% -6,7% -19,3% 2,3% Weeks 21-24 -9,9% -27,4% -12,2% -18,3% -16,8% -26,8% -8,6% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Figure 6. Total number ship calls region 2020 (Percentage change 2019) Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. 1.2.2 Ships call country grouping economy Drops number ship calls varied country groupings economies. Developed countries affected (Table 4). host annual seagoing ship calls year, economies numbers drop 23.1 cent Q2 2020. Calls fell 9.1 cent developing countries 10.9 cent economies transition. LDCs experienced comparatively negative trends; number calls 2020 2.6 cent compared period 2019. -14% -01% 06% 06% -11% 00% -13% -10% -25% -06% -12% -12% -21% -05% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -05% 00% 05% 10% Q1 Q2 16 Table 4. Total number ship calls type economy country grouping (2020-2019) Developed countries Developing countries Developed countries Transition economies Small Island States Calls 2020 511.498 468.858 15.783 20.808 11.993 Calls 2019 586.207 487.111 16.200 23.814 13.287 Total -12,7% -3,7% -2,6% -12,6% -9,7% Q1 -1,2% 1,8% -4,4% -14,3% -1,7% Q2 -23,1% -9,1% -0,5% -10,9% -19,7% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. 1.2.3 Small Island Developing States (SIDS) impact COVID-19 crisis SIDS accelerated Week 12 2020 .., date WHO called COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 8 Table 5). Q1 decline limited 1.7 cent, number ship calls diminished rapidly quarter, intensified impact Week 21 Week 24. result, ship calls quarter dropped 19.7 cent. SIDS countries affected quarter 2020. Figure 7. Total number ship calls SIDS ship type (2020-2019) Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. decline varied ship type. slow start, container ship calls SIDS increased months 2020, returning 2019 levels Weeks 21 24. result, container ship calls 2020 continue outnumber calls observed year , data suggesting positive trends Q1 Q2. absolute number calls small (.., calls week SIDS), carriers maintained services carrying essential cargoes trade SIDS. , dry bulk ship calls halved late April situation worse case passenger ships (-44.2 cent). Substantially calls recorded case LNG LPG ships. Ro/Ro services, cases considered lifelines SIDS, moderately affected (-1.4 cent Q2 2020, -4.4 cent 24 weeks 2020) allowing essential cargoes reach SIDS, exports loaded board calling ships. 3’055 917 2’667 260 294 433 2’955 1’465 1’253 2’682 318 316 3’845 453 0 500 1’000 1’500 2’000 2’500 3’000 3’500 4’000 4’500 CONTAINER SHIPS DRY BREAKBULK DRY BULK WET BULK LNG CARRIERS LPG CARRIERS PASSENGER SHIPS RO/RO 2020 2019 17 Table 5. Total number ship calls SIDS ship type (2020-2019) Total Calls ers Break Bulk Dry Bulk Wet Bulk LNG LPG Pax RO/RO Calls 2020 11.993 3.055 1.175 917 2.667 260 294 3.192 433 Calls 2019 13.287 2.955 1.465 1.253 2.682 318 316 3.845 453 Total -9,7% 3,4% -19,8% -26,8% -0,6% -18,2% -7,0% -17,0% -4,4% Q1 -1,7% 2,5% -15,2% -15,3% 7,9% -18,5% 17,5% -1,4% -7,2% Q2 -19,7% 4,3% -24,8% -40,1% -9,6% -18,0% -25,7% -44,2% -1,4% Weeks 1-4 1,5% -4,5% -10,2% -14,9% 15,6% -12,5% 12,2% 7,4% -11,9% Weeks 5-8 -3,8% 3,0% -18,4% -26,8% 1,9% -13,6% 43,9% -1,1% -5,1% Weeks 9-12 -2,8% 9,7% -16,9% 0,0% 7,0% -27,9% 1,8% -11,4% -4,0% Week 13-16 -21,3% 9,8% 3,1% -35,6% -3,4% 7,3% -11,3% -65,7% 0,0% Weeks 17-20 -13,5% 3,4% -24,8% -36,6% -0,5% -25,5% -29,3% -27,5% 7,8% Weeks 21-24 -23,8% 0,0% -45,7% -48,6% -24,0% -29,3% -33,8% -26,1% -10,7% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. 1.2.4 Ship calls ship type COVID-19 Economic impact barometer developed International Association Ports Harbors (IAPH) reveals , global level Week 12 2020, 45 cent ports faced drop 5 cent number container ship calls compared situation normal conditions (Figure 8). slightly improved Week 21, negative impact peak. Figure 8. Percentage ports ship calls, Week 15-Week 29, 2020 Source: Notteboom Theo Pallis . Athanasios (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Port Economic Impact Barometer. Issue 11. Antwerp: IAPH-WPSP. July. Trends ship calls evolved timelines ports region.13 situation Europe peaked Week 19 2020 shown gradual improvement . Americas, full impact COVID-19 felt Europe, Week 27 2020 clear signs situation improving. global scale, 11 cent ports reported decline 13 Notteboom . Pallis .. (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Port Economic Impact Barometer. Issue 11. Antwerp: IAPH-WPSP. July. 00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W23 W25 W27 W29 Containers Cargo Passenger 18 container ship calls 25 cent. large portion ports worldwide (41 51 cent, depending week industry surveyed) reported port calls “ cargo ships” decreased 5 cent compared normal situation.14 cruise passenger markets heavily impacted ports world confronted decline passenger ship calls 50 cent. cases, drop significant -90 cent. share peaked week 19. , terminals work offshore supply areas faced reduction ship calls. April 2020, main ports containers discharged ship call. cases, ships entered port terminal carrying essential cargoes. service providers utilized smaller ships cargo volumes decreased. result, additional regional feeder services reported. , , overriding trend . cases, blank sailings combined large ships, meant frequent calls larger volumes handle port call occurs. caused challenges ports inland carriers frequent calls large call exchanges. Indicative ‘world record’ registered Port Los Angeles. port recorded largest number container movements single ship call. occurred late June 2020 port reported longshoremen successfully moved 18,465 containers MSC Isabella single ship call APM Terminals’ Pier 400.15 Container ship calls Impacted blank sailings, number container ship calls declined 2020, carriers introducing series blank sailings long-haul liner services. Blank sailings , subject limitations, serve leading indicator demand. years, correlation blanked capacity actual demand declines observed, carriers capacity management. IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Economics Impact Barometer, 40 cent container ports worldwide experienced blank sailings week declaration pandemic mid- March 2020 (Figure 9). Blank sailings Asia-United States trade route reached 19 cent cancelled capacity 2020 ( 47 249 calls blanked). , wave cancellations announced June 2020. Announced blank sailings Q3 2020, suggest cancellations eventually lead 20 cent originally planned sailings.16 disruption caused pandemic evolved stages. stage started early 2020, typical pattern Chinese Year (.., lowered container shipping demand due Chinese factories shut ). stage Chinese Year extended extra weeks, blank sailings continuing longer. stage, cargo originally scheduled transported East Chinese Year delayed lockdown Wuhan, catching transported time lag . Data early March reflect development impression maritime trade recovering. fourth phase marked COVID-19 outbreak China impact lockdowns restrictions economic activity Europe North America consumer business demand. total, 24 weeks 2020 (.., January mid-June), container ship calls 3.5 cent 2019, equivalent reduction 213,283 calls. declaration pandemic, container ship calls globe 5.8 cent level period 2019. 14 Ibid. 15 Port Los Angeles (2020). Port Los Angeles, MSC, APM terminals ILWU set world record cargo moves single ship call, PLA, 19 June. 16Knowler Greg (2020). Alliances outline extensive blank sailings Q3. 3 June. 19 Figure 9. Containerized maritime transport, 2020 (Percentage ports affected blank sailings) Source: Notteboom Theo Pallis . Athanasios (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Port Economic Impact Barometer. Issue 11. Antwerp: IAPH-WPSP. Australasia Oceania (-12.4 cent) -Saharan Africa (-12.7 cent) impacted (Table 6). container ship capacity deployed regions evident beginning year. countries distant epicenter COVID-19 disease erupted (China), effect pandemic hardened Q2 2020. , countries United States, Netherlands Italy, outbreak severe recorded high number infected cases, container ship capacity deployed period. Europe Mediterranean registered decline 11.6 cent compared previous year. , North America recorded drop 8.8 cent. remains continuation crisis United States affect number ship calls . economies Latin America remained tight restrictions Q2 2020, precise effect higher suggested current data. Blank sailings consequences container ports, biggest . Port calls ultra large container ships (ULCS) declined numbers size megaships carry volumes. Major container ports North America Europe report average moves ULCS call reached 10,000 TEUs. creates peaks ship--ship operations yard activity create operational challenges terminals. affects landside operations, technology notifications cargo release hinterland transportation . Ports report takes days situation control yard gates lost movements cargo rise. workforce pressure peaks days days duty.17 Developed economies (-6.7 cent) economies transition (-7.4 cent) recorded significant declines number container ship calls beginning year. Developing countries LDCs experienced decrease, , cases, significant Q2 2020. Conversely, increase number calls recorded SIDS; 100 ship calls 2019 recorded economies beginning 2020. capacity management liner shipping companies lowered number ships operating main routes, number regional feeder services parts world increased order serve regional demand (Table 7). 17 Notteboom Theo Pallis . Athanasios (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Port Economic Impact Barometer. Issue 11. Antwerp: IAPH-WPSP. July. 41% 53% 45% 43% 53% 45% 48% 00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W23 W25 W27 W29 20 Table 6. Container ship calls region (2020-2019) ALL Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 4.081 54.663 103.801 15.045 18.574 11.279 5.840 Calls 2019 4.658 58.996 104.001 15.005 19.363 12.230 6.688 Total -12,4% -7,3% -0,2% 0,3% -4,1% -7,8% -12,7% Q2 -11,6% -11,6% -1,9% -6,3% -4,3% -8,8% -8,6% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Table 7. Container ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Developed Developing LDC transition SIDS Calls 2020 68.125 138.546 4.169 2.443 3.055 Calls 2019 73.044 141.018 4.242 2.637 2.955 Total -6,7% -1,8% -1,7% -7,4% 3,4% Q2 -8,5% -4,4% -2,8% -8,8% 4,3% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Dry Bulk carriers number dry bulk ship calls declined rate equivalent container ship calls. 5.8 cent decline Q2 2020, decline 2020 stood -3.6 cent. , distribution impact case bulk shipping containers (Table 8). case bulk carriers, negative effect COVID-19 crisis severe Latin America (-21.6 cent) Australasia Oceania (-18.6 cent) regions major exporters dry bulk cargoes (coal iron ore). impact significant Europe (-11.4 cent) pronounced East, decreased 3.6 cent. North America, number ship calls bulk carriers remained stable. East, 3.6 cent decline Q2 2020 reverse positive trend observed months year case Gulf & ISC region. contrast situation containerized trade segment, countries economies transition, SIDS LDCs experienced steepest declines bulker ship calls 18 cent, 26.8 cent 12.8 cent, . , developed countries recorded 6.5 cent decline developing countries registered decline 1 cent (Table 9). Table 8. Dry bulk ship calls region (2020-2019) ALL Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 1.868 25.247 30.287 4.053 4.948 3.631 4.394 Calls 2019 2.294 28.507 30.225 4.006 6.309 3.632 4.761 Total -18,6% -11,4% 0,2% 1,2% -21,6% 0,0% -7,7% Q2 -14,5% -15,1% -3,6% -7,0% -19,0% 2,8% -1,6% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. 21 Table 9. Dry bulk ship calls type economy country grouping (2020-2019) Developed Developing LDC transition SIDS Calls 2020 45.287 103.455 3.284 5.021 917 Calls 2019 48.414 104.536 3.764 6.126 1.253 Total -6,5% -1,0% -12,8% -18,0% -26,8% Q2 -7,8% -4,5% -13,6% -7,5% -40,1% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Break-bulk ships Total ship calls break-bulk ships Q2 2020 fell 8.9 cent compared previous year. Latin America (-21.6 cent beginning 2020), Europe Mediterranean (-15.1 cent) Australasia Oceania (-18.6 cent) recorded declines break-bulk ship calls. decline pronounced Saharan Africa (-7.7 cent). , calls rest world, Gulf & ISC, East North America affected (Table 10). beginning 2020, impact significant developing (-12.7 cent) developed (-10,3 cent) countries, economies transition (-9.2 cent). hand, number ship calls LDCs remained substantially higher 24 weeks 2019 (Table 11). Table 10. Break-bulk ship calls region (2020-2019) ALL Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 1.868 25.247 30.287 4.053 4.948 3.631 4.394 Calls 2019 2.294 28.507 30.225 4.006 6.309 3.632 4.761 Total -18,6% -11,4% 0,2% 1,2% -21,6% 0,0% -7,7% Q2 -14,5% -15,1% -3,6% -7,0% -19,0% 2,8% -1,6% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Table 11. Break-bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Developed Developing LDC transition SIDS Calls 2020 26.529 41.479 3.343 3.077 1.175 Calls 2019 29.591 43.607 3.013 3.523 1.465 Total -10,3% -4,9% 11,0% -12,7% -19,8% Q2 -11,7% -8,5% 12,8% -9,2% -24,8% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Wet bulk carriers Port calls wet bulk carriers diminished lesser rate calls dry cargo ships. quarter 2020, ship calls recorded North America (-14.7 cent), Gulf & ISC (-10.3 cent), Latin America (-8.6 cent) Europe Mediterranean (-6.8 cent). Saharan Africa Australasia recovery port calls. port calls wet bulk ships 2020 1.9 cent 2019 (Table 12). Developed countries (-8.3 cent) countries economies transition (-7.3 cent) experienced largest decline COVID-19 characterized pandemic. developing countries, 5.8 cent drop wet bulk ship calls. regions contraction, port calls wet bulk carriers recorded 6.6 growth LDCs (Table 13). 22 Table 12. Wet bulk ship calls region (2020-2019) ALL Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 2.649 53.425 52.875 21.441 15.700 17.711 6.414 Calls 2019 2.651 54.517 51.084 21.653 17.605 19.566 6.502 Total -0,1% -2,0% 3,5% -1,0% -10,8% -9,5% -1,4% Q2 11,5% -6,8% -2,3% -10,3% -8,6% -14,7% 5,3% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Table 13. Wet bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Developed Developing LDC transition SIDS Calls 2020 57.954 102.202 3.451 6.608 2.667 Calls 2019 60.239 103.002 3.237 7.100 2.682 Total -3,8% -0,8% 6,6% -6,9% -0,6% Q2 -8,3% -5,8% 18,6% -7,3% -9,6% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. LNG LPG ships aggregate data suggest impact LNG LPG carrying ships comparatively minimal. closer large variations world. LNG carriers started dynamically 2020, due increased traffic North America, Europe Mediterranean, Gulf ISC. arrival pandemic reversed trend. quarter 2020, Latin America experienced drop 3.9 cent LNG vessel port calls. period, calls LNG carriers declined Australasia Oceania Saharan Africa (Table 14). LDCs, number calls LNG ships Q2 2020 quarter period 2019 (-15 cent Q2 2020), developed (-3.5 cent) developing (-1.6 cent) countries experienced modest declines. Countries economies transition affected. , 24 weeks 2020, economies registered increase LNG ship calls compared period 2019 (Table 15). Table 14. LNG ship calls region (2020-2019) LNG Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 676 2.504 2.517 1.005 363 579 248 Calls 2019 716 2.194 2.608 1.008 398 451 298 Total -5,6% 14,1% -3,5% -0,3% -8,8% 28,4% -16,8% Q2 -10,5% 3,5% -5,1% -4,1% -3,9% 10,8% -16,8% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Table 15. LNG ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) LNG Developed Developing LDC transition SIDS Calls 2020 3.384 4.201 38 269 260 Calls 2019 3.194 4.188 51 240 318 Total 5,9% 0,3% -25,5% 12,1% -18,2% Q2 -3,5% -1,6% -15,0% 3,1% -18,0% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. 23 number global LPG ship calls recorded Q2 2020 3.2 cent number Q2 2019. LNG carrying ships, variations region significant. Australia, LPG maritime trade dynamic Q1 2020, reversed trends Q2 2020 (Q1: 29.6 cent year--year Q2: -4.5 cent). holds true North America, 21 cent increase Q1 fell 3.3 cent Q2 East, 7.6 cent increase Q1 fell -3.6 cent Q2. Europe experienced similar trends, LPG ship calls Q2 dropping 7.3 cent compared year . decline number ship calls severe Latin America beginning 2020. trend substantially Saharan Africa LPG ship calls increased Q2 (Table 16). Countries economies transition collapse number LPG ship calls Q2 2020 (-30.9 cent), adding declining trend started Q1 (-25.1 cent). , absolute numbers, size market small. LPG ship calls place developing countries, calls place 2019. market place developed countries decline Q2 reached -8.4 cent. LDCs represent small LPG market, number calls increase 34 cent Q2 2020. , terms absolute numbers change LDCs moderate (Table 17). Table 16. LPG ship calls region (2020-2019) LPG Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 176 6.169 4.193 2.427 1.655 1.423 823 Calls 2019 159 6.421 4.117 2.402 1.914 1.272 762 Total 10,7% -3,9% 1,8% 1,0% -13,5% 11,9% 8,0% Q1 29,6% -0,4% 7,6% -1,0% -19,4% 21,0% 1,5% Q2 -4,5% -7,3% -3,6% 3,3% -7,2% 3,3% 15,3% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Table 17. LPG ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) LPG Developed Developing LDC transition SIDS Calls 2020 6.021 10.164 422 259 294 Calls 2019 6.266 10.053 382 346 316 Total -3,9% 1,1% 10,5% -25,1% -7,0% Q2 -8,4% 0,0% 34,0% -30,9% -25,7% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Ro/Ro ships COVID-19 Pandemic significantly impacted Ro/Ro services. March 2020, port calls Ro/Ro ships worldwide declined 22.8 cent compared period 2019. ship calls suspended. Total calls Ro/Ro ships beginning 2020 declined 13.8 cent compared period 2019. regions experienced decline. decrease exceeded 30 cent North America, 25 cent Europe Mediterranean, 20 cent Latin America. Saharan Africa, decline 20 cent East, number calls dropped 16 cent. case Gulf ISC region, decline eroded market dynamism observed early 2020 (Table 18). Developing (-27.7 cent Q2) developed countries (-22 cent) recorded largest declines Ro/Ro operations. decline Ro/Ro ship calls LDCs reached double digit levels. contrast, Ro/Ro operations economies transition remained steady number ship calls quarter recording increase (Table 19). 24 Table 18. Ro/Ro ship calls region (2020-2019) ALL Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 1.416 36.160 19.881 2.175 2.664 4.126 1.290 Calls 2019 1.729 42.998 21.855 2.053 3.196 5.213 1.508 Total -18,1% -15,9% -9,0% 5,9% -16,6% -20,9% -14,5% Q2 -19,7% -26,4% -16,6% 0,2% -21,0% -31,6% -18,3% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Table 19. Ro/Ro ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Developed Developing LDC transition SIDS Calls 2020 47.762 17.570 804 1.576 433 Calls 2019 54.433 21.601 919 1.599 453 Total -12,3% -18,7% -12,5% -1,4% -4,4% Q2 -22,0% -27,7% -10,6% 10,3% -1,4% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Passenger ships AIS data confirmed huge impact COVID-19 pandemic passenger shipping. passenger ship calls place Q2 2020. Cruises suspended governments imposing lockdowns economies restrictions people’ movements. 24 weeks 2020, passenger ship calls fell 17 cent. decline universal extended regions, Latin America Gulf & ISC affected , East affected . , East, decline Q2 2020 reached -17 cent (Table 20). quarter year, passenger shipping activities LDCs decreased 85.7 cent. countries economies transition, activities halved (-43 cent), developed developing countries, number passenger ship calls approximately 32 cent compared previous year (Table 21). Table 20. Passenger ship calls region (2020-2019) ALL Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 4.528 210.928 48.233 1.421 7.347 36.637 410 Calls 2019 5.525 260.790 50.646 2.158 9.972 43.352 524 Total -18,0% -19,1% -4,8% -34,2% -26,3% -15,5% -21,8% Q1 -7,0% -0,8% 9,3% -6,0% -5,7% 7,3% -13,2% Q2 -35,3% -34,6% -17,0% -65,8% -69,3% -33,2% -40,1% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Table 21. Passenger ship calls type economy (2020-2019) Developed Developing LDC transition SIDS Calls 2020 256.436 51.241 272 1.555 3.192 Calls 2019 311.026 59.106 592 2.243 3.845 Total -17,6% -13,3% -54,1% -30,7% -17,0% Q2 -32,9% -31,1% -85,7% -43,0% -44,2% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data collected MarineTraffic. Note: Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. 25 1.3. KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED COVID-19 pandemic affected global trade flows unprecedented speed scale. double-digit decline merchandise trade projected 2020. existing forecasts pointing recovery 2021, expectations remain uncertain subject pandemic’ pathway extent effectiveness policy intervention measures aimed stimulating growth. crisis induced slowdown trade regions country groupings, developed developing alike. , trade developing countries fallen faster. Declines exports developing countries reflect, factors, reduced demand destination markets. drop imports reflects, factors, reduced demand exchange rate movements, concerns debt shortage foreign currency. lockdowns Latin America continued quarter 2020, forecasts pointing rapid deterioration developing countries. Economic disruptions affected sectors . Textiles Apparel declined Office Machinery Automotive sectors. contrast, agri-food sector, volatile grew marginally pandemic related restrictions. pandemic’ impact maritime trade varied regions. Europe Mediterranean experienced major drop ship calls. Australia Oceania, decline significant. Latin North Americas recorded double-digit declines. , drop -Saharan African port calls stood -9.7 cent. East Gulf & ISC experienced moderate declines. 2020, global ship calls contracted 8.7 cent, 1.1 million ship calls recorded 2019. quarter 2020 ship calls marginal. picture changed dramatically countries started impose restrictions lockdowns economies societies. Q2 2020, number ship calls 17 cent. translated cut 95,206 ship calls compared quarter 2019. Compared Q2 2019, ship calls Q2 2020 declined 23.1 cent developed countries, 9.1 cent developing countries, 10.9 cent countries economies transition. SIDS recorded 20 cent drop number ports calls Q2 2020, compared quarter 2019. shipping main lifeline island countries, crucial developments shaping port call/connectivity patterns islands closely monitored. important ascertain observed negative trend long-lasting temporary. Building resilience SIDS ensure improved connectivity levels emerges important priority action area. impacts COVID-19 pandemic varied cargo type. Container dry bulk ship calls fell 5.8 cent quarter 2020. impact pronounced case port calls wet bulk carriers (-6.3 cent). Calls LNG LPG ships declined slower rates 2.9 cent 1.1 cent, . Break-bulk ship calls fell sharply 8.5 cent Ro/Ro ship calls collapsed 22. 8 quarter. Passenger ship calls significantly affected decline 17 cent. Trends port ship calls reveal magnitude differentiated impacts COVID-19 pandemic maritime transport trade. calls study determine observed effects trends structural shifts temporary phenomena dissipate pandemic effects fade . 26 APPENDIX – DETAILED DATA ON SHIP PORT CALLS WORLDWIDE Tables UNCTAD calculations, based AIS data MarineTraffic. Data Q2 2020 preliminary. based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24 compared weeks 2019. Table 22. Container ship calls (2020-2019) Containerships Calls 2019 Calls 2020 Var 20/19 Var (%) Total 220.941 213.283 -7658 -3,5% WEEKS 1-12 (Q1) 108.338 107.162 -1.176 -1,1% WEEK 13-24 (Q2) 112.603 106.121 -6.482 -5,8% WEEKS 1-4 35.729 36.210 481 1,3% WEEKS 5-8 36.465 34.760 -1.705 -4,7% WEEKS 9-12 36.144 36.192 48 0,1% WEEKS 13-16 37.600 36.081 -1.519 -4,0% WEEKS 17-20 36.864 35.150 -1.714 -4,6% WEEKS 21-24 38.139 34.890 -3.249 -8,5% Table 23. Container ships call region (2020-2019) Container ships Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 4.081 54.663 103.801 15.045 18.574 11.279 5.840 Calls 2019 4.658 58.996 104.001 15.005 19.363 12.230 6.688 Total -12,4% -7,3% -0,2% 0,3% -4,1% -7,8% -12,7% Q1 -13,2% -2,8% 1,6% 6,9% -3,9% -6,7% -16,2% Q2 -11,6% -11,6% -1,9% -6,3% -4,3% -8,8% -8,6% 1-4 -5,5% -0,8% 5,5% 7,6% -4,2% -5,2% -20,8% 5-8 -22,0% -4,3% -2,7% 4,3% -9,5% -7,3% -21,2% 9-12 -10,3% -3,3% 1,9% 9,2% 2,9% -7,7% -4,0% 13-16 -11,5% -12,9% 2,0% -3,0% -2,6% -7,3% -13,5% 17-20 -11,0% -8,7% -2,4% -6,8% 0,0% -6,7% -4,1% 21-24 -12,3% -13,1% -5,1% -9,0% -10,1% -12,4% -8,1% Table 24. Container ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Containerships Developed Developing LDC Transition SIDS Calls 2020 68.125 138.546 4.169 2.443 3.055 Calls 2019 73.044 141.018 4.242 2.637 2.955 Total -6,7% -1,8% -1,7% -7,4% 3,4% Q1 -4,9% 1,0% -0,8% -5,9% 2.5% Q2 -8,5% -4,4% -2,8% -8,8% 4.3% 1-4 -3,3% 4,0% -4,3% -7,4% -4,5% 5-8 -7,4% -3,3% -3,8% -0,9% 3,0% 9-12 -3,8% 2,2% 6,8% -9,2% 9,7% 13-16 -9,7% -0,8% -5,6% -10,8% 9,8% 17-20 -4,8% -4,9% 4,7% -0,7% 3,4% 21-24 -10,8% -7,3% -7,1% -14,5% 0,0% 27 Table 25. Break-bulk ship calls (2020-2019) Breakbulk Calls 2019 Calls 2020 Var 20/19 Var (%) Total 79.734 74.428 -5.306 -6,7% WEEKS 1-12 (Q1) 39.294 37.607 -1.687 -4,3% WEEK 13-24 (Q2) 40.440 36.821 -3.619 -8,9% WEEKS 1-4 13.227 12.670 -557 -4,2% WEEKS 5-8 13.041 12.317 -724 -5,6% WEEKS 9-12 13.026 12.620 -406 -3,1% WEEKS 13-16 13.478 12.527 -951 -7,1% WEEKS 17-20 13.155 12.371 -784 -6,0% WEEKS 21-24 13.807 11.923 -1.884 -13,6% Table 26. Break-bulk ship calls region (2020-2019) Breakbulk Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 1.868 25.247 30.287 4.053 4.948 3.631 4.394 Calls 2019 2.294 28.507 30.225 4.006 6.309 3.632 4.761 Total -18,6% -11,4% 0,2% 1,2% -21,6% 0,0% -7,7% Q1 -22,0% -7,5% 4,3% 9,4% -23,8% -3,4% -13,0% Q2 -14,5% -15,1% -3,6% -7,0% -19,0% 2,8% -1,6% 1-4 -28,2% -6,4% 7,0% 9,3% -30,5% -8,2% -12,9% 5-8 -25,4% -6,4% 1,1% 5,9% -24,1% 0,4% -16,5% 9-12 -10,0% -9,6% 4,6% 13,3% -14,7% -2,4% -9,2% 13-16 -6,9% -15,5% 0,3% -7,0% -16,4% 3,8% 3,9% 17-20 -22,9% -9,8% -0,2% -10,4% -15,2% 1,6% -2,5% 21-24 -12,7% -19,6% -10,5% -3,5% -25,0% 3,3% -5,7% Table 27. Break-bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Breakbulk Developed Developing LDC Transition SIDS Calls 2020 26.529 41.479 3.343 3.077 1.175 Calls 2019 29.591 43.607 3.013 3.523 1.465 Total -10,3% -4,9% 11,0% -12,7% -19,8% Q1 -8,9% -1,2% 9,2% -16,2% -15.2% Q2 -11,7% -8,5% 12,8% -9,2% -24.8% 1-4 -10,3% -0,7% 8,3% -11,5% -10,2% 5-8 -10,3% -2,3% 10,0% -17,6% -18,4% 9-12 -6,2% -0,6% 9,5% -19,1% -16,9% 13-16 -10,9% -5,0% 22,5% -20,8% 3,1% 17-20 -6,5% -7,1% 10,6% -1,9% -24,8% 21-24 -17,4% -13,1% 6,0% -4,2% -45,7% 28 Table 28. Dry bulk ship calls (2020-2019) Dry Bulk Calls 2019 Calls 2020 Var 20/19 Var (%) Total 162.840 157.047 -5.793 -3,6% WEEKS 1-12 (Q1) 79.198 78.266 -932 -1,2% WEEK 13-24 (Q2) 83.642 78.781 -4.861 -5,8% WEEKS 1-4 28.242 26.706 -1.536 -5,4% WEEKS 5-8 26.018 25.308 -710 -2,7% WEEKS 9-12 24.938 26.252 1.314 5,3% WEEKS 13-16 27.106 26.456 -650 -2,4% WEEKS 17-20 27.502 27.310 -192 -0,7% WEEKS 21-24 29.034 25.015 -4.019 -13,8% Table 29. Dry bulk ship calls region (2020-2019) Dry Bulk Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 1.868 25.247 30.287 4.053 4.948 3.631 4.394 Calls 2019 2.294 28.507 30.225 4.006 6.309 3.632 4.761 Total -18,6% -11,4% 0,2% 1,2% -21,6% 0,0% -7,7% Q1 -22,0% -7,5% 4,3% 9,4% -23,8% -3,4% -13,0% Q2 -14,5% -15,1% -3,6% -7,0% -19,0% 2,8% -1,6% 1-4 -28,2% -6,4% 7,0% 9,3% -30,5% -8,2% -12,9% 5-8 -25,4% -6,4% 1,1% 5,9% -24,1% 0,4% -16,5% 9-12 -10,0% -9,6% 4,6% 13,3% -14,7% -2,4% -9,2% 13-16 -6,9% -15,5% 0,3% -7,0% -16,4% 3,8% 3,9% 17-20 -22,9% -9,8% -0,2% -10,4% -15,2% 1,6% -2,5% 21-24 -12,7% -19,6% -10,5% -3,5% -25,0% 3,3% -5,7% Table 30. Dry bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Dry Bulk Developed Developing LDC Transition SIDS Calls 2020 45.287 103.455 3.284 5.021 917 Calls 2019 48.414 104.536 3.764 6.126 1.253 Total -6,5% -1,0% -12,8% -18,0% -26,8% Q1 -5,0% 2,7% -12,1% -26,6% -15.3% Q2 -7,8% -4,5% -13,6% -7,5% -40.1% 1-4 -11,2% 1,0% -23,8% -42,9% -14,9% 5-8 -7,3% 0,4% -11,3% -15,1% -26,8% 9-12 4,6% 6,8% 1,9% -13,1% 0,0% 13-16 -4,8% -0,1% -16,7% -13,3% -35,6% 17-20 -1,2% 0,0% -13,5% -1,2% -36,6% 21-24 -16,5% -13,0% -9,6% -7,3% -48,6% 29 Table 31. Wet bulk ship calls (2020-2019) Wet Bulk Calls 2019 Calls 2020 Var 20/19 Var (%) Total 173.578 170.215 -3363 -1,9% WEEKS 1-12 (Q1) 86.323 88.454 2.131 2,5% WEEK 13-24 (Q2) 87.255 81.761 -5.494 -6,3% WEEKS 1-4 29.171 29.805 634 2,2% WEEKS 5-8 29.489 29.228 -261 -0,9% WEEKS 9-12 27.663 29.421 1.758 6,4% WEEKS 13-16 28.583 27.942 -641 -2,2% WEEKS 17-20 28.811 27.638 -1.173 -4,1% WEEKS 21-24 29.861 26.181 -3.680 -12,3% Table 32. Wet bulk ship calls region (2020-2019) Wet Bulk Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 2.649 53.425 52.875 21.441 15.700 17.711 6.414 Calls 2019 2.651 54.517 51.084 21.653 17.605 19.566 6.502 Total -0,1% -2,0% 3,5% -1,0% -10,8% -9,5% -1,4% Q1 -9,4% 2,9% 9,5% 9,0% -12,7% -3,9% -7,1% Q2 11,5% -6,8% -2,3% -10,3% -8,6% -14,7% 5,3% 1-4 -12,8% 4,4% 14,6% 8,5% -19,1% -11,0% -16,7% 5-8 -16,4% 0,8% 2,5% 9,0% -18,1% 1,1% -15,9% 9-12 3,2% 3,4% 11,6% 9,5% 1,8% -1,2% 17,2% 13-16 8,6% -5,9% 2,6% 2,6% -2,8% -11,8% 3,6% 17-20 21,1% -2,8% -2,6% -9,2% -7,7% -12,5% 20,6% 21-24 5,0% -11,4% -6,4% -23,1% -15,3% -19,6% -6,9% Table 33. Wet bulk ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Wet bulk Developed Developing LDC Transition SIDS Calls 2020 57.954 102.202 3.451 6.608 2.667 Calls 2019 60.239 103.002 3.237 7.100 2.682 Total -3,8% -0,8% 6,6% -6,9% -0,6% Q1 0,9% 4,2% -3,9% -6,6% 7.9% Q2 -8,3% -5,8% 18,6% -7,3% -9.6% 1-4 0,6% 6,3% -10,8% -30,0% 15,6% 5-8 -0,5% -1,4% -9,5% 9,0% 1,9% 9-12 2,6% 8,2% 10,7% 11,5% 7,0% 13-16 -7,2% 0,0% 20,2% -1,2% -3,4% 17-20 -5,3% -4,6% 38,6% -3,6% -0,5% 21-24 -12,5% -12,3% -0,4% -16,6% -24,0% 30 Table 34. LNG ship calls (2020-2019) LNG Calls 2019 Calls 2020 Var 20/19 Var (%) Total 7.673 7.892 219 2,9% WEEKS 1-12 (Q1) 3.810 4.117 307 8,1% WEEK 13-24 (Q2) 3.863 3.775 -88 -2,3% 1-4 1.255 1.376 121 9,6% 5-8 1.306 1.379 73 5,6% 9-12 1.249 1.362 113 9,0% 13-16 1.255 1.299 44 3,5% 17-20 1.277 1.308 31 2,4% 21-24 1.331 1.168 -163 -12,2% Table 35. LNG ship calls region (2020-2019) LNG Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 676 2.504 2.517 1.005 363 579 248 Calls 2019 716 2.194 2.608 1.008 398 451 298 Total -5,6% 14,1% -3,5% -0,3% -8,8% 28,4% -16,8% Q1 -0,6% 26,3% -2,0% 4,0% -14,0% 45,6% -16,8% Q2 -10,5% 3,5% -5,1% -4,1% -3,9% 10,8% -16,8% 1-4 13,8% 24,5% 2,1% -0,6% -10,5% 53,8% -26,2% 5-8 -7,7% 24,3% -5,5% 2,4% -15,9% 51,4% -11,8% 9-12 -6,1% 29,9% -2,8% 10,6% -14,9% 32,1% -9,8% 13-16 -11,7% 12,6% -1,9% -8,6% 5,2% 57,4% -16,7% 17-20 -5,2% 10,7% -5,3% 6,0% 6,7% 14,1% -23,9% 21-24 -14,3% -12,9% -8,1% -8,7% -17,2% -33,8% -9,3% Table 36. LNG ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) LNG Developed Developing LDC Transition SIDS Calls 2020 3.384 4.201 38 269 260 Calls 2019 3.194 4.188 51 240 318 Total 5,9% 0,3% -25,5% 12,1% -18,2% Q1 15,4% 2,2% -32,3% 22,1% -18,5% Q2 -3,5% -1,6% -15,0% 3,1% -18% 1-4 15,0% 4,1% -43,8% 77,8% -12,5% 5-8 12,6% 2,0% -44,4% -12,5% -13,6% 9-12 18,7% 0,6% 16,7% 26,3% -27,9% 13-16 2,6% 5,3% -37,5% -4,8% 7,3% 17-20 1,5% 2,0% 20,0% 18,2% -25,5% 21-24 -15,3% -10,6% -14,3% -4,9% -29,3% 31 Table 37. LPG ship calls (2020-2019) LPG Calls 2019 Calls 2020 Var 20/19 Var (%) Total 17.047 16.866 -181 -1,1% WEEKS 1-12 (Q1) 8.444 8.535 91 1,1% WEEK 13-24 (Q2) 8.603 8.331 -272 -3,2% WEEKS 1-4 2.805 2.788 -17 -0,6% WEEKS 5-8 2.884 2.900 16 0,6% WEEKS 9-12 2.755 2.847 92 3,3% WEEKS 13-16 2.819 2.915 96 3,4% WEEKS 17-20 2.837 2.818 -19 -0,7% WEEKS 21-24 2.947 2.598 -349 -11,8% Table 38. LPG ship calls region (2020-2019) LPG Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 176 6.169 4.193 2.427 1.655 1.423 823 Calls 2019 159 6.421 4.117 2.402 1.914 1.272 762 Total 10,7% -3,9% 1,8% 1,0% -13,5% 11,9% 8,0% Q1 29,6% -0,4% 7,6% -1,0% -19,4% 21,0% 1,5% Q2 -4,5% -7,3% -3,6% 3,3% -7,2% 3,3% 15,3% 1-4 4,0% 1,5% 12,1% -1,0% -30,4% 7,0% -9,3% 5-8 48,0% -3,9% 2,9% 2,2% -19,1% 39,4% 4,8% 9-12 38,1% 1,5% 7,7% -4,3% -5,0% 17,0% 11,1% 13-16 -39,4% 1,5% 7,6% 6,9% -8,3% 15,0% 7,6% 17-20 26,9% -11,9% 2,9% 18,4% -11,5% 1,4% 52,2% 21-24 6,9% -11,6% -18,9% -14,8% -1,4% -5,8% -2,2% Table 39. LPG ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) LPG Developed Developing LDC Transition SIDS Calls 2020 6.021 10.164 422 259 294 Calls 2019 6.266 10.053 382 346 316 Total -3,9% 1,1% 10,5% -25,1% -7,0% Q1 0,7% 2,2% -6,3% -17,8% 17,5% Q2 -8,4% 0,0% 34,0% -30,9% -25,7% 1-4 -3,1% 2,6% -26,4% -16,3% 12,2% 5-8 1,5% -0,4% 15,5% -7,7% 43,9% 9-12 3,6% 4,5% -3,1% -28,1% 1,8% 13-16 0,3% 6,6% 31,5% -40,8% -11,3% 17-20 -10,7% 4,5% 68,9% -21,2% -29,3% 21-24 -14,6% -10,3% 10,0% -27,3% -33,8% 32 Table 40. Passenger ship calls (2020-2019) Calls 2019 Calls 2020 Var 20/19 Var (%) Total 372.967 309.504 -63.463 -17,0% WEEKS 1-12 (Q1) 173.348 175.243 1.895 1,1% WEEK 13-24 (Q2) 199.619 134.261 -65.358 -32,7% WEEKS 1-4 55.665 59.095 3.430 6,2% WEEKS 5-8 58.790 59.357 567 1,0% WEEKS 9-12 58.893 56.791 -2.102 -3,6% WEEKS 13-16 64.346 45.562 -18.784 -29,2% WEEKS 17-20 65.377 43.328 -22.049 -33,7% WEEKS 21-24 69.896 45.371 -24.525 -35,1% Table 41. Passenger ship calls region (2020-2019) Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 4.528 210.928 48.233 1.421 7.347 36.637 410 Calls 2019 5.525 260.790 50.646 2.158 9.972 43.352 524 Total -18,0% -19,1% -4,8% -34,2% -26,3% -15,5% -21,8% Q1 -7,0% -0,8% 9,3% -6,0% -5,7% 7,3% -13,2% Q2 -35,3% -34,6% -17,0% -65,8% -69,3% -33,2% -40,1% 1-4 -4,7% 2,4% 22,7% -3,7% 2,3% 14,2% -19,2% 5-8 -12,4% 1,0% 0,7% 0,0% -1,3% 4,4% 16,7% 9-12 -3,0% -5,5% 5,5% -15,3% -19,7% 3,7% -33,0% 13-16 -40,8% -32,0% -3,4% -72,0% -82,3% -26,9% -72,0% 17-20 -38,6% -36,0% -17,7% -63,3% -58,8% -33,1% -53,1% 21-24 -25,1% -35,4% -28,5% -59,7% -55,7% -38,9% 96,4% Table 42. Passenger ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Passenger Developed Developing LDC Transition SIDS Calls 2020 256.436 51.241 272 1.555 3.192 Calls 2019 311.026 59.106 592 2.243 3.845 Total -17,6% -13,3% -54,1% -30,7% -17,0% Q1 0,7% 3,7% -28,4% -14,0% -1,4% Q2 -32,9% -31,1% -85,7% -43,0% -44,2% 1-4 4,4% 14,9% -15,9% -7,5% 7,4% 5-8 1,4% -0,3% -20,4% -18,6% -1,1% 9-12 -3,5% -3,3% -54,8% -15,2% -11,4% 13-16 -29,4% -27,1% -86,3% -34,5% -65,7% 17-20 -34,2% -29,4% -94,0% -45,1% -27,5% 21-24 -34,6% -36,8% -77,0% -47,6% -26,1% 33 Table 43. Ro/Ro ship calls (2020-2019) Ro/Ro Calls 2019 Calls 2020 Var 20/19 Var (%) Total 78.552 67.712 -10840 -13,8% WEEKS 1-12 (Q1) 38.991 37.183 -1.808 -4,6% WEEK 13-24 (Q2) 39.561 30.529 -9.032 -22,8% WEEKS 1-4 11.919 11.551 -368 -3,1% WEEKS 5-8 13.536 12.539 -997 -7,4% WEEKS 9-12 13.536 13.093 -443 -3,3% WEEKS 13-16 13.384 10.962 -2.422 -18,1% WEEKS 17-20 12.683 9.507 -3.176 -25,0% WEEKS 21-24 13.494 10.060 -3.434 -25,4% Table 44. Ro/Ro ship calls region (2020-2019) Australasia & Oceania Europe & Med East Gulf & ISC Latin America North America Saharan Africa Calls 2020 1.416 36.160 19.881 2.175 2.664 4.126 1.290 Calls 2019 1.729 42.998 21.855 2.053 3.196 5.213 1.508 Total -18,1% -15,9% -9,0% 5,9% -16,6% -20,9% -14,5% Q1 -16,6% -5,1% -1,3% 11,4% -12,6% -10,0% -11,0% Q2 -19,7% -26,4% -16,6% 0,2% -21,0% -31,6% -18,3% 1-4 -7,1% -3,4% 1,1% 23,3% -17,1% -11,9% -18,2% 5-8 -29,0% -7,2% -4,2% 0,6% -13,0% -10,1% -16,9% 9-12 -9,6% -4,6% -0,3% 10,7% -7,8% -8,0% 5,8% 13-16 -8,5% -25,9% -7,0% 7,0% -9,5% -16,1% -20,2% 17-20 -20,6% -27,7% -21,5% -1,2% -20,1% -34,3% -11,9% 21-24 -30,6% -25,6% -21,4% -5,3% -33,7% -44,1% -22,4% Table 45. Ro/Ro ship calls economy country grouping (2020-2019) Ro-Ro Developed Developing LDC Transition SIDS Calls 2020 47.762 17.570 804 1.576 433 Calls 2019 54.433 21.601 919 1.599 453 Total -12,3% -18,7% -12,5% -1,4% -4,4% Q1 -2,3% -9,4% -14,1% -11,8% -7,2% Q2 -22,0% -27,7% -10,6% 10,3% -1,4% 1-4 -2,8% -2,6% -25,4% -3,9% -11,9% 5-8 -4,3% -13,9% -20,0% -15,8% -5,1% 9-12 0,0% -11,2% 10,0% -14,6% -4,0% 13-16 -18,4% -18,7% -5,6% -6,3% 0,0% 17-20 -23,9% -31,0% -13,9% 22,8% 7,8% 21-24 -23,8% -33,1% -12,5% 20,3% -10,7% 34 Chapter 2 IMPLICATIONS FOR LINER SHIPPING CONNECTIVITY COVID-19 affected maritime cargo flows port calls liner shipping connectivity levels. important ascertain observed shift temporary permanent. equal importance understand , , trade volumes reduced ship port calls affected determinants ports’ countries liner shipping connectivity levels. investigate change number services, operators, deployed capacity, direct connections ship sizes. section components estimate liner shipping connectivity levels container ports. Comparing quarters 2020 quarters 2019 generated insights impacts. crisis caused differentiated impact port connectivity worldwide triggered break existing trend, global port connectivity generally improved time. differentiated impact connectivity patterns varied region variations types economies country groupings. maritime transport main channel SIDS’ access regional global marketplace, vulnerability economies disruptions maritime supply chain overemphasized. SIDS, transport sectoral activity . Shipping ports lifeline sustaining SIDS livelihood. background, section examines implications COVID-19 disruption main components underpin liner shipping connectivity levels ports countries estimated UNCTAD’ Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI). 2.1 TRENDS IN LINER SHIPPING CONNECTIVITY MDS Transmodal data liner shipping schedules underscored negative impact pandemic, worldwide variations magnitude. summarized Table 46 Error! Reference source ., number shipping services, weekly port calls, shipping operators, deployed container ships capacity, direct calls declined rates. Q1 Q2 2020, maximum capacity TEUs container ships deployed increased container ports regions. , crisis, cuts services deployed capacity, strategy liner shipping companies favoring increase ship sizes continued. Figure 10 illustrates trends reflected container shipping schedules quarters 2020 compared 2019. 35 Table 46. Trends liner shipping connectivity components (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) – Major container ports developed countries Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU capacity Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Los Angeles ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ - ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ Long Beach ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↑ NY&NJ ↑ - ↑ - - ↑ - ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ Rotterdam ↓ ↓ - ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ Antwerp ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ - - ↓ ↓ - Hamburg - ↓ - ↓ ↓ ↓ - ↑ - ↓ ↓ ↓ Bremerhaven ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Piraeus - - - ↓ - ↑ - - - ↓ - ↓ Felixstowe ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↑ ↑ Marsaxlokk ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ - ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Melbourne ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Sydney ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↓ ↓ Memo ↓ <-2% -- -2% ≤ ≤ +2% ↑ > +2% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. Table 47. Trends liner shipping connectivity components (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 -Q2 2019) – Major container ports developing countries Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU capacity Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Colon ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Santos ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↑ - - Tanger Med ↑ - ↑ - ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ Durban - ↓ - ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ - - Lagos ↓ - ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Mombasa ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ - ↓ ↓ - ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Shanghai ↓ ↓ - ↓ - ↓ ↑ ↑ - ↓ ↓ ↓ Singapore ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ - - ↑ ↑ - ↓ ↓ ↓ Ningbo - ↓ - ↓ ↑ - ↑ ↑ - ↓ - - Hong Kong ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ - ↓ ↑ - Busan ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ - - ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ - ↓ Dubai ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↓ ↓ - ↑ Memo ↓ <-2% -- -2% ≤ ≤ +2% ↑ > +2% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. http://www.mdst..uk/ http://www.mdst..uk/ 36 Figure 10. Trends fleet deployment, Q1 2019 -Q2 2020 (Index: Q1 2019 = 100) Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. Asian ports experienced moderate decrease connectivity levels. China country face disruptions due COVID-19 outbreak, initial effect country’ port connectivity moderated continued maritime trade shipments exports Q1 2020. impact doubled magnitude quarter, demand importing consuming countries slumped growing lockdowns restrictions economic activity movement people goods. ports Oceania, Sydney Melbourne, suggests presence trend consistent observed Asian ports. , Europe, container ports experienced levels liner shipping connectivity, transshipment ports. Lockdowns major economies sizeable impact. decline connectivity accelerated quarter year ports continental Europe. United Kingdom lockdowns constraining illustrates differences stringency lockdown measures. port Felixstowe continued operate usual. North America, picture mixed. Ports West Coast United States experienced significant negative liner shipping connectivity trends, quarter 2020. impact severe East Coast port York Jersey. contrast, Central Latin American container ports showed signs strength retained connectivity levels sustained growth rates pandemic. Exporting foodstuff products partly explains trend. Data Latin America reflects quarter 2020, period COVID-19 pandemic severely hit region. worth monitoring trends evolve region drawing final conclusions. , African ports (Lagos, Durban, Tanger Med) connectivity levels coped pandemic. , port Mombasa, negative implications pandemic significant. http://www.mdst..uk/ 37 2.2 LINER SHIPPING CONNECTIVITY IN SIDS early 2020, components SIDS’ liner shipping connectivity index calculated UNCTAD, rise (Figure 11). onset COVID-19 crisis weighed prevailing market dynamism, number liner services increased 7.8 cent Q1 2020 weekly port calls jumped 10.9 cent. reflects partly 7.4 cent growth number shipping operators. Q2 2020, increase case indicators halved. size deployed capacity remained key positive trend expanded 22.5 cent quarter year 20 cent . COVID-19 affected SIDS essentially terms deployed capacity direct calls terms liner shipping services. number shipping services SIDS examined remained unchanged Q1 Q2 2020. remaining SIDS, liner shipping services small absolute numbers. SIDS stable pattern liner shipping connectivity compared mainland countries island countries acting hubs global sea transport system (.., Singapore Malta). majority SIDS, number liner shipping operators remained unchanged; niche markets exposed international mega trends, existing operators providing minimum level service supporting trade flows. Figure 11. SIDS liner shipping connectivity components (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 - Q1 & Q2 2019) Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. 2.2.1 SIDS Atlantic Indian Ocean regions Table 48 details change liner shipping connectivity levels SIDS located Atlantic Indian Ocean regions. implications COVID-19 pandemic reveal mixed picture. Cabo Verde negatively impacted pandemic. Compared period 2019, Q1 2020, Cabo Verde recorded 43 cent decline number liner shipping services. , port calls dropped 36 cent, deployed ship carrying capacity fell 30.6 cent number direct calls slumped 64 cents. figures reflect decision shipping lines temporarily suspend services blank sail total estimated - ship calls SIDS. trend continued Q2 2020. Mauritius, SIDS region double-digit number liner shipping services SIDS ports handle ships 14.000, slightly affected disruptions caused pandemic Q2 7.76% 10.95% 7.42% 7.88% 22.57% 7.81% 8.24% 6.20% 5.44% 5.76% 5.03% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% Q1 Q2 http://www.mdst..uk/ 38 2020. quarter 2020 liner shipping connectivity components remained unchanged compared Q1 2019. quarter 2020, Mauritius removal liner shipping service 13 shipping services servicing county 2019. , weekly call removed. remaining SIDS Atlantic Indian Ocean regions recorded positive trends liner shipping connectivity. quarter 2020, Comoros experienced increase components determine liner shipping connectivity levels. exception number direct calls Q2 2020 decreased 8.3 cent. Similarly, Seychelles experienced increase component liner shipping connectivity, absolute numbers increase marginal. Sao Tome Principe, analysis significant increase number operators, absolute numbers significant ( operators 2020 operators period 2019). important change removal direct calls quarters 2020 compared 11 direct calls recorded 2019. Maldives remained notably marginal. Table 48. Atlantic Indian Ocean SIDS liner shipping connectivity components (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 - Q1 & Q2 2019) Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU capacity Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Cabo Verde ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ - - ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Comoros ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ - - ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ - ↓ Maldives - - - - - - ↑ ↓ - - ↓ - Mauritius - ↓ ↑ ↓ - - ↑ ↑ - ↑ - ↓ Sao Tome & Principe - - - - ↑ ↑ - - ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ Seychelles ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ - - ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ - - Memo ↓ <-2% -- -2% ≤ ≤ +2% ↑ > +2% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. 2.2.2 SIDS Caribbean region exceptions, liner shipping connectivity 10 SIDS located Caribbean unaffected COVID-19 disruptions, absolute numbers marginal (Table 49). Bahamas, Jamaica Trinidad Tobago countries double-digit numbers relating liner shipping services, weekly calls, shipping operators. Bahamas, , limited number operators. case Saint Kitts Nevis, , drop 25 cent liner shipping services translated shipping service, operator, week port calls Q1 Q2 2020, compared Q1 Q2 2019. reductions considered small, implications SIDS underestimated. cancellation single port call temporary basis important trade SIDS. remaining Caribbean SIDS, liner shipping connectivity trends positive call / operator addition week remained unchanged compared period COVID-19 declared pandemic. , existing data Q1 Q2 2020 increase total ship carrying capacity deployed Caribbean SIDS. Demand essential cargoes served additional regional services. added small number existing services resulted odd trend pandemic. http://www.mdst..uk/ 39 Table 49. Caribbean SIDS liner shipping connectivity components (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 - Q1 & Q2 2019) Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU capacity Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Antigua & Barbuda ↑ - ↑ - ↑ - - - ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ Bahamas ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ - ↑ - ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ Barbados - - - - - - - ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ - Dominica ↑ - ↑ - ↑ - - - ↑ ↑ ↑ - Grenada ↑ - ↑ - ↑ - - - ↑ ↑ ↑ - Jamaica ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ - ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Saint Kitts Nevis ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ - - ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ Saint Lucia - - - - - - - - - ↑ ↓ ↓ Saint Vincent & Grenadines ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↑ ↑ - ↑ ↑ ↑ Trinidad & Tobago ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ - - ↓ Memo ↓ <-2% -- -2% ≤ ≤ +2% ↑ > +2% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. 2.3.2 SIDS Pacific region case Caribbean, SIDS Pacific experienced stable environment pandemic; absolute numbers limited, Q1 2020 (Table 50). Fiji Solomon Islands twelve SIDS region enjoy double-digit numbers terms liner shipping services. 18 SIDS integrated globalized trading networks, suppressed demand major consumer markets lesser impact island states liner shipping connectivity levels. services support local communities considered essential respective SIDS economies. , significant change percentage term observed ship capacity deployed number direct calls serving islands region. reflective capacity management strategies adopted liner shipping operators. pattern 2020 2019 limited, observed maximum ship capacity calling ports Pacific SIDS. Kiribati, Marshall Islands Tonga, change remaining SIDS region. stability observed crisis interpreted positive sign. truth, , SIDS stagnating connectivity levels long time irrespective COVID-19 disruption. , limited impact connectivity indicative marginalization global trading shipping networks. 18 Data Trust Territory Pacific Islands. http://www.mdst..uk/ 40 Table 50. Pacific Ocean SIDS liner shipping connectivity components (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU capacity Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Fiji - - - ↑ - - - - ↑ ↑ - - Kiribati ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Marshall Islands ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Micronesia (Federated States ) - ↑ - ↑ - - - - - ↑ - ↑ Nauru - - - - - - - - - - ↓ ↓ Palau - - ↓ ↓ - - - ↓ ↓ ↓ - - Samoa - - ↑ ↑ - - - - ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Solomon Islands ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ - - - - ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Timor-Leste - - - - - - - - - - - - Tonga ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ - - ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Tuvalu - - - - - - - - - - - - Vanuatu - - - - - - - - - - ↑ ↑ Memo ↓ <-2% -- -2% ≤ ≤ +2% ↑ > +2% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. 2.3 CONTAINER PORTS CONNECTIVITY BY REGION 2.3.1 Asia quarter 2020, pandemic undermined growth major East container ports (Table 51). impact magnified quarter year. , ports examined context present analysis experienced decrease number liner shipping services, weekly number container ship calls, number liner shipping operators size deployed capacity. time, maximum capacity container ship calling ports continued grow. impact Shanghai, biggest world container port, moderate location country epicenter pandemic erupted. quarter 2020, Shanghai experienced marginal decrease number liner shipping operators (-1.5 cent), drop explain similar declines number liner services ship calls. situation worsened Q2 2020 number liner operators decreased 2.9 cent number services ship calls fell 6 cent. deployed ship carrying capacity decreased 7.2 cent maximum size container ship calling port Shanghai increased 12 cent. Ningbo, trends similar. effects pandemic felt Q2 2020, number liner services reduced 4.8 cent number calls fell 4.9 cent, .., drop deployed ship carrying capacity. time, maximum capacity container ship calling Ningbo port increased 11 cent. impact pandemic severe case Hong-Kong. Compared quarter 2019, port serviced 9.8 cent liner shipping operators 5.1 cent liner shipping services, container ship calls quarter 2020. quarter 2020, Hong Kong experienced significant decrease liner shipping connectivity components. Q2 2020, number liner shipping operators servicing port dropped 10.5 cent quarter 2019. number liner shipping services calling port Hong Kong fell 10.1 cent, number weekly container ship calls dropped 10.5 cent. time, size biggest container ship visiting port continued increase double-digit rates Q1 Q2 2020. noted, , political tensions Hong Kong contributed observed downgrades port’ liner shipping connectivity level. http://www.mdst..uk/ 41 Trends biggest world container port, Singapore, observed Chinese ports. quarter 2020, number liner shipping operators decreased moderately (-1.8 cent) number liner shipping services ship calls (-4.8 cent -5.5 cent, ). Compared quarter 2019, equivalent quarter 2020 port Singapore lose 4.8 cent liner shipping services. , suffered decline 6.2 cent number ship calls 3.5 cent size deployed ship carrying capacity. ports China, capacity biggest container ship calling port 10 cent bigger. noted , increase capacity biggest container ship deployed observed Shanghai . expected, Shanghai Singapore ports frequently part liner services connecting East Europe. Similar trends observed Busan. quarter 2020 impacted, compared Q2 2019. Busan port experienced decrease number liner shipping services (- 8.3 cent) weekly number container ship calls (-8.8 cent). number liner shipping operators decreased slightly (-1.7 cent) size deployed capacity declined 4.3 cent. maximum capacity container ships calling port Q2 2020 increased 14.7 cent compared Q2 2019. Western Asia, Dubai experienced comparable developments. main components Dubai port’ liner shipping connectivity declined Q1 2020 compared Q1 2019. Dubai lost 3.6 cent liner shipping services 3.9 cent weekly container ship calls. deployed ship carrying capacity fell 4.3 cent number direct calls contracted 1.4 cent. situation worsened Q2 2020, port lost 10.6 cent weekly number container ship calls, 9.4 cent liner shipping services 8.8 cent size deployed ship carrying capacity. port intermediate stop services departing East, 13.1 cent increase maximum ship carrying capacity calling port, line observed trend ship size upsizing major main ports located East-Europe containerized trade lane. Table 51. Liner shipping connectivity major Asian container ports (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Shanghai -2,3% -6,0% -1,7% -5,7% -1,5% -2,9% 11,0% 12% 0,9% -7,2% -2,0% -3,0% Singapore -3,6% -4,8 % -5,5% -6,2% -1,8% 0% 11,0% 12% 0,9% -3,5% -3,8% -4,6% Ningbo -1,1% -4,8% -1,1% -4,7% 7,8% 0% 11,0% 12% -0,9% -4,9% -1,6% -0,8% Hong Kong -5,1% -10,1% -5,3% -10,5% -9,8% -8,0% 15,0% 11% -1,6% -12,9% 2,4% -0,5% Busan -3,1% -8,3% -3,6% -8,8% 0% -1,7% 13,8% 14,7% 4,4% -4,3% -1,4% -5,2% Dubai -3,6% -9,4% -3,9% -10,6% 5,4% 2,6% 1,3% 13,1% -4,0% -8,8% -1,4% 2,1% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. 2.3.2 Africa African ports shown mixed trends (Table 52). Tanger Med (Morocco), major transshipment port Mediterranean Sea, continued improve liner shipping connectivity levels, blank sailings negatively impacted weekly services. Q1 2020, Tanger Med experienced increase number liner shipping services (18.6 cent), ship calls week (18.3 cent), deployed ship carrying capacity (27.8 cent) maximum size container ships calling port (15.5 cent). negative trend decrease number operators (-7.2 cent). quarter 2020, indicators stagnated comparison Q2 2019. number direct calls declined 4.2 cent, number liner shipping services port calls remained practically unchanged. Similarly, 2020, liner shipping connectivity components Nigerian port Lagos, serves gateway port Western Africa, improved. analysis required understand reasons observed growth. http://www.mdst..uk/ 42 Durban, trends negative quarter 2020. Q1 2020, negative trend affecting port Durban 6.6 cent drop ship carrying capacity deployed. quarter, port lost 5 cent liner shipping services, 6.2 cent ship calls 2.8 cent deployed capacity. contrast, maximum capacity container ship calling port increased 14.5 cent. picture Kenyan port Mombasa, major gateway port Eastern Africa, . port experienced decrease components underpin port’ liner shipping connectivity. Compared Q1 2019, quarter 2020, liner shipping services port calls declined 12 cent Mombasa number liner shipping operators remained unchanged. , declined 7 cent quarter year. , direct calls cut 15 cent deployed vessel carrying capacity fell 6 cent. maximum capacity container vessels calling port period dropped 42.3 cent. Reduced maritime trade volumes carried / port irrelevant withdraw bigger vessel calling port. Liner shipping services remained operational securing delivery essential goods trade adjusting schedules assets deployed seeking capacity utilization. Notably, COVID-19 outbreak African countries, including Kenya, experienced major challenges forwarding cargoes destination hinterland connections (.., trucks moving / port cross-border crossings) heavily congested. Trucks borders severely delayed due restriction enter neighboring countries. put truck drivers quarantine 14 days trip continues operations truck companies suspended shortage public health staff borders observed. Administrative problems due approaches neighboring countries occurred cooperation national administrations crisis limited; situation reported ports Africa, Central South America. indicators, comparing respective quarters 2019, similar rates decrease observed Q1 Q2 2020. exception carrying capacity largest vessel calling, remained unchanged. Table 52. Liner shipping connectivity major African container ports (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Tanger Med 18,9% 0% 18,3% -0,5% -7,1% -7,1% 15,5% 23,7% 27,8% 19,1% 6,1% -4,2% Durban 0% -5,0% 0,0% -6,2% 7,1% 7,1% 2,1% 14,5% -6,6% -2,8% -1,3% -2,5% Lagos -12,5% 0% 11,9% 33,9% 0% 28,6% 25,1% 32,4% 50,8% 113% 2,4% 14,3% Mombasa -11,8% -12,5% -12,4% -11,0% 0% -7,1% -42,3% 0% -6,0% -6,8% -14,9% -13,0% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. 2.3.3 Europe shown Table 53, Rotterdam started year quarter 2020 drop number liner shipping operators (-9.1 cent), number ship calls (-0.5 cent) size ship carrying capacity deployed (-7.5 cent). quarter 2020, port Rotterdam lost 10.2 cent liner services 7.6 cent ship calls. , ship carrying capacity deployed fell 10.1 cent. Similar trends observed Antwerp, decrease liner shipping connectivity components smoother, comparison. quarter 2020, Antwerp experienced drop components compared Q2 2019. Weekly port calls fell 7 cent ship carrying capacity deployed cut 5 cent. Hamburg patterns Rotterdam, Bremerhaven North European port recorded negative trends 2020. Hamburg Bremerhaven called larger container ships Q2 2020 compared Q2 2019. increase approximately 15 cent. http://www.mdst..uk/ 43 United Kingdom, port Felixstowe remained comparatively unaffected COVID-19 pandemic. Q1 2020 number liner operators remained unchanged compared period 2019, deployed container ship carrying capacity. number direct calls increased 12.9 cent, maximum ship carrying capacity servicing port increased 11 cent compared Q2 2019. improvements liner shipping connectivity levels observed Q2 2020. increase 7.7 cent number liner shipping operators, 5.0 cent increase ship carrying capacity deployed accompanied increase 1.8 cent number direct calls. resulted lighter lockdown measures adopted United Kingdom. Piraeus, Chinese owned transshipment-focused port Mediterranean, liner shipping companies maintained services smaller ships ( capacity terms) Q2 2020. Piraeus registered increase 5.3 cent number liner shipping operators, weekly port calls fell 2.3 cent. ship carrying capacity deployed dropped 11.5 cent, number liner shipping services capacity largest ship calling port remained unchanged compared quarter 2019. , Port Marsaxlokk suffered significant drop liner shipping connectivity level early days 2020. Compared Q2 2019, quarter 2020 port lose 40 cent liner shipping services port calls, loss 22.8 cent deployed ship carrying capacity. , reduced shipments, Asia Europe, cancellation liner shipping services affected Maltese pure transshipment port heavily. analysis required ascertain exact severe negative trends affecting Marsaxlokk extent attributed COVID-19 disruptions. Table 53. Liner shipping connectivity major container ports Europe (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Rotterdam -2,3% -10,2% -0,5% -7,6% -9,1% -9,3% 11,0f 14,1% 7,5% -10,1% -4,7% -4,0% Antwerp -3,2% -4,0% -4,7% -7,0% -10,9% -3,8% 13,1% 1,1% -0,6% -5,0% -3,6% 0% Hamburg -1,9% -7,8% -0,7% -8,2% -17,1% -8,8% 1,1% 14,1% 1,2% -8,8% -4,2% -3,7% Piraeus 1,9% 0% 0% -2,3% 0% 5,3% 1,9% 0% 1,6% -11,5% -1,7% -10,3% Felixstowe 5,0% 5,0% 5,0% 5,0% 0% 7,7% 11,0% 11,0% 0,2% 4,5% 12,9% 13,8% Bremerhaven -9,4% -14,0 -8,7% -14,3% -19,0% -15,8% 15,5% 15,5% -11,4% -4,1% -13,7% -4% Marsaxlokk -41,9% -39,3% -41,7% -38,9% 0% -7,7% 21,2% 3,3% -34,5% -22,8% -26,0% -23,9% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. 2.3.4 Latin America Caribbean negative impact liner shipping connectivity levels Latin America Caribbean (Table 54) severe, , Q1 Q2 2020. port Colon Panama experienced considerable increase values components measure liner shipping connectivity, maximum capacity container ships calling port Q1 Q2 2020. Liner shipping connectivity levels improved number liner shipping operators increasing Q1 2019 12 Q2 2020. achieved pandemic port experienced 4.2 cent drop container traffic January 2020. Similarly, Brazil, port Santos improvement liner shipping connectivity levels quarters 2020 compared period 2019. COVID-19 hit Brazil, Latin America general, countries, .., pandemic spreads part Q2 2020, worth monitoring improvement sustain. Trends observed Q1 2020 amplified Q2. http://www.mdst..uk/ 44 2.3.5 North America West Coast North American ports negatively impacted pandemic, Q2 2020. contrast, East Coast ports experienced improvement components defining liner shipping connectivity levels (Table 54). West Coast ports serve plenty cargoes coming China parts Eastern Asia, connectivity rapidly affected shipping lines capacity management adopted immediately COVID-19 outbreak. Liner shipping carrier strived void sailings trades Asia North America due demand, ports East coast North America continued serve calls transporting cargoes / Europe parts world, lesser scale year . port Los Angeles heavily affected impact port Long Beach moderated. suffered loss - ship carrying capacity deployed -quarter weekly ship calls. number services port Los Angeles decreased 24 cent Q2 2020 number calls week dropped 26.1 cent. port Long Beach, ship carrying capacity deployed cut marginally 0.9 cent drop 13.3 cent number liner shipping operators. number liner shipping services weekly ship calls declined 5.9 cent 6.5 cent, . year 2020 started improvements components defining port’ liner shipping connectivity level port Long Beach. Q1, number liner shipping services liner operators number weekly port calls deployed ship carrying capacity increased significantly compared Q1 2019. COVID- 19 declared pandemic March 2020, situation reversed. East Coast, Port York Jersey positive start 2020. Q1 2020 number liner shipping services increased 5.1 cent, number weekly ship calls expanded 4.0 cent. ship carrying capacity deployed rose 6.1 cent, rate largely maintained Q2 2020. quarter, number services calling port York Jersey remained stable, number ship calls week. , ship carrying capacity deployed increased 3.2 cent number direct calls fell 5.7 cent. ship carrying capacity deployed port Los Angeles decreased 28.8 cent quarter 2020. time, , capacity biggest container ship calling port reached 23,756 TEUs, equivalent jump 64.8 cent compared period 2019. Similarly, port Long Beach increase 18.9 cent biggest container ship capacity calling port. quarter 2020, capacity biggest container ship 16,652 TEUs 14,000 TEUs recorded period year earlier. Increases size biggest container ship calling port noted port York Jersey. , rise slower (+4.8 cent bigger Q2 2020 compared Q1 2019). Table 54. Liner shipping connectivity major container ports Americas (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Los Angeles -12,5% -24,0% -13,7% -26,1% -13,3% -21,4% 1,0% 64,8% -10,1% -28,8% 4,5% -2,8% Long Beach 11,1% -5,9% 12,1% -6,5% 14,3% -13,3% 5,2% 18,9% 5,1% -0,9% 9,2% 10,9% Port York Jersey 5,1% 0,0% 4.0% 0% 0% 4,8% 0% 4,8% 6,1% 3,2% -2,2% -5,7% Colon 50,0% 66,7% 50,0% 66,7% 100% 83,3% 3,7% 2,2% 28,6% 38,1% 48,4% 50,0% Santos 4,2% 12,5% 6,7% 11% 0% 12,5% 7,3% 0% 6,4% 4,9% 0% 1,2% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. http://www.mdst..uk/ 45 2.3.6 Oceania impact Melbourne Sydney ports mirrored experienced Asian ports, albeit pronounced. start 2020, number liner shipping operators, liner shipping services weekly container ship calls year . impact COVID-19 pandemic severe Q2 2020. port Melbourne lost - weekly container calls, 7.7 cent liner shipping services 8.7 cent liner shipping operators. Sydney, number liner shipping operators calling port fell 10.5 cent number shipping services weekly ship calls declined 8.7 cent 7 cent, . , component defining liner shipping connectivity levels Sydney port, , maximum size ship calling port, increased 8 cent Q1 2020 18 cent Q2 (Table 55). increase quarter reflects decision CMA CGM deploy 10,662 TEU capacity container ship South-East Asia – Australia trade route. Table 55. Liner shipping connectivity major container ports Oceania (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Shipping Services Weekly Port Calls Shipping Operators Max TEU Deployed Capacity Direct Calls Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Melbourne -3,8% -7,7% -7,4% -20,6% -4,3% -8,7% 8,3% 18,1% -2,4% -2,1% -7,8% -8,8% Sydney -4,3% -8,7% -4,7% -7.0% -5,3% 10,5% 8,3% 18,1% 0,5% 3,1% -8,6% -11,9% Source: UNCTAD calculations, based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. http://www.mdst..uk/ 46 2.4 KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED Trends components liner shipping connectivity measured UNCTAD LSCI helped shed light implications COVID-19 crisis container shipping trade. negative trend observed components determine liner shipping connectivity levels. number liner shipping services, weekly port calls, liner shipping operators, ship carrying capacity deployed, direct calls, dropped board 24 weeks 2020. decline intensified COVID-19 pandemic declared Week 12 2020. negative impact COVID-19 pandemic liner shipping connectivity levels varied widely regions. Asia Oceania, ports experienced moderate decrease connectivity levels. China country affected pandemic, initial negative effect liner shipping connectivity levels Chinese ports moderate. Europe, area COVID-19 struck China, substantial drops liner shipping connectivity levels. North America, picture mixed. West Coast ports United States experienced significant negative trends, quarter 2020. impact ports located East Coast severe. Central Latin America, container ports showed signs strength liner shipping connectivity levels remained steady , cases, increased early days pandemic. African ports performed comparatively . quarter 2020 decline components determining liner shipping connectivity levels accelerated. negative effect Asian ports aggravated. continental Europe stricter extended lockdown periods accompanied demand deteriorating liner shipping connectivity levels ports. Central Latin America, maritime supply chain shown resilience terms connectivity faced challenges difficulties secure presence personnel, movement cargoes / ports mainland. ports region, impacts varied widely, transshipment ports affected . SIDS affected reduction deployed ship carrying capacity cuts number direct calls. SIDS, missing ship call vital economies local communities depend heavily maritime transport imports, including provision essential goods. crucial liner shipping connectivity SIDS, , reduced. maximum size container ships deployed port continued increase pandemic. seventeen total ports assessed Week 24 2020, size biggest container ship calling higher 10 cent compared period 2019. , ports increase 10 cent. ports, size biggest ship 2020 equal biggest calling ship 2019. liner shipping continues exploit benefits economies scale, tendency deploy larger ships continued pandemic suppressed demand. result, terminal operations entire maritime supply chain faced additional pressure hosted ship calls substantially cargo volumes handle call. 47 APPENDIX II – LINER SHIPPING CONNECTIVITY IN SELECTED PORTS Source ( figures): Calculations based data MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). Data Q2 2020 preliminary based Weeks 13 – Weeks 24. compared weeks 2019. Figure 12. Liner shipping connectivity port Shanghai (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 13. Liner shipping connectivity port Singapore (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) -2 .2 9% -1 .7 4% -1 .4 7% 11 .0 1% 0. 92 % -2 .0 3% -6 .0 2% -5 .7 5% -2 .9 0% 11 .9 8% -7 .2 1% -3 .0 3% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% % ServiceCount % WeeklyPortCalls %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity %DirectCalls 2020Q1 2020Q2 -3 .5 6% -5 .4 7% - 1. 79 % 11 .0 1% 0. 95 % -3 .8 2% -4 .8 0% -6 .2 2% 0. 00 % 11 .9 8% -3 .4 9% -4 .6 0% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% % ServiceCount % WeeklyPortCalls %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity %DirectCalls 2020Q1 2020Q2 http://www.mdst..uk/ 48 Figure 14. Liner shipping connectivity port Ningbo (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 15. Liner shipping connectivity port Hong Kong (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 16. Liner shipping connectivity Busan port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) -1 .1 1% -1 .1 2% 7. 84 % 1 1. 01 % -0 .8 7% -1 .5 6% -4.37% -4.66% -4.86% -0.77% -6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu 2020Q1 2020Q2 -5 .1 0% -5 .2 6% -9 .8 0% -1 .5 6% 2. 43 % -1 0. 05 % -1 0. 52 % -8 .0 0% 11 .0 1% -1 2. 89 % -0 .4 9% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% %MaxTeu %DirectCalls 2020Q1 2020Q2 -3 .1 0% -3 .5 6% 0. 00 % 13 .3 7% 4. 39 % -1 .4 0% -8 .3 3% -8 .8 2% -1 .7 2% 14 .3 6% -4 .3 2% -5 .1 9% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% %MaxTeu 2020Q1 2020Q2 49 Figure 17. Liner shipping connectivity Dubai port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 18. Liner shipping connectivity Tanger Med port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 19. Liner shipping connectivity port Lagos (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) -3 .6 1% -3 .2 8% 5. 41 % 1. 35 % -4 .0 4% -1 .3 8% -9 .4 1% -1 0. 61 % 2. 63 % -8 .7 9% 2. 13 % -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu %DirectCalls 2020Q1 2020Q2 18 .9 2% 18 .3 4% -7 .1 4% 15 .5 0% 6. 11 % -0 .4 6% -7 .1 4% 23 .7 3% 19 .1 2% -4 .2 0% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% % ServiceCount % WeeklyPortCalls %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity 2020Q1 2020Q2 -1 2. 50 % 11 .8 6% 0. 00 % 25 .0 7% 50 .8 4% 2. 38 % 0. 00 % 33 .9 0% 28 .5 7% 32 .4 3% 14 .2 9% -20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% % WeeklyPortCalls %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity %DirectCalls 2020Q1 2020Q2 50 Figure 20. Liner shipping connectivity Mombasa port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 21. Liner shipping connectivity port Durban (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 22. Liner shipping connectivity port Rotterdam (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) -1 1. 76 % -1 2. 41 % -4 2. 27 % -5 .9 9% -1 4. 89 % -1 2. 50 % -1 1. 01 % -7 .1 4% -6 .7 8% -1 3. 64 % -45.00% -40.00% -35.00% -30.00% -25.00% -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 2020Q1 2020Q2 7. 14 % 2. 14 % -6 .6 6% -1 .2 7% -5 .0 0% -6 .2 0% 7. 14 % 14 .5 0% -2 .8 1% -2 .5 0% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu 2020Q1 2020Q2 -2 .3 1% -0 .5 0% -9 .0 9% 11 .0 1% 7. 51 % -4 .6 6% -1 0. 16 % -7 .6 0% -9 .3 0% 14 .1 1% -1 0. 11 % -4 .0 0% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% %MaxTeu 2020Q1 2020Q2 51 Figure 23. Liner shipping connectivity port Antwerp (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 24. Liner shipping connectivity Hamburg port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 25. Liner shipping connectivity Bremerhaven port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) -3 .2 0% -4 .6 7% -1 0. 91 % -0 .6 0% -3 .6 4% -4 .0 0% -7 .0 0% -3 .7 7% 1. 13 % -5 .0 4% 0. 00 % -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% %MaxTeu 2020Q1 2020Q2 -1 .2 8% -0 .6 7% -1 7. 14 % 1. 13 % 1. 24 % -4 .1 7% -7 .7 9% -8 .1 9% -8 .8 2% 14 .1 1% -8 .8 5% - 3. 74 % -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% %MaxTeu 2020Q1 2020Q2 -9 .4 3% -8 .2 7% -1 9. 05 % -1 1. 42 % -1 3. 69 % -1 4. 00 % -1 4. 31 % -1 5. 79 % -4 .1 0% -3 .9 7% -25.00% -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% %MaxTeu 2020Q1 2020Q2 52 Figure 26. Liner shipping connectivity port Piraeus (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 27. Liner shipping connectivity Felixstowe port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 28. Liner shipping connectivity port Marsaxlokk (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) 1. 92 % 0. 00 % 0. 00 % 1. 90 % 1. 58 % -1 .6 9% 0. 00 % -2 .3 3% 5. 26 % 0. 00 % -1 1. 47 % -1 0. 32 % -14.00% -12.00% -10.00% -8.00% -6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% % ServiceCount %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu 2020Q1 2020Q2 5. 00 % 5. 00 % 0. 00 % 11 .0 1% 0. 22 % 12 .9 0% 5. 00 % 5. 00 % 7. 69 % 11 .0 1% 4. 52 % 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% % ServiceCount % WeeklyPortCalls %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity %DirectCalls 2020Q1 2020Q2 -4 1. 94 % -4 1. 67 % 0. 00 % -3 4. 54 % -2 6. 02 % -3 9. 29 % -3 8. 89 % -7 .6 9% 3. 28 % -2 2. 81 % -2 3. 68 % -50.00% -40.00% -30.00% -20.00% -10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% %MaxTeu 2020Q1 2020Q2 53 Figure 29. Liner shipping connectivity Colon port (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 30. Liner shipping connectivity port Santos (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 31. Liner shipping connectivity port Los Angeles (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) 50 .0 0% 50 .0 0% 3. 70 % 28 .6 0% 4 8. 39 %66 .6 7% 66 .6 7% 8 3. 33 % 2. 22 % 38 .1 0% 50 .0 0% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% % ServiceCount % WeeklyPortCalls %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity %DirectCalls 2020Q1 2020Q2 4. 17 % 6. 75 % 0. 00 % 7. 27 % 6. 40 % 0. 00 % 11 .0 0% 0. 00 % 4. 93 % 1. 20 % 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% % ServiceCount % WeeklyPortCalls %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity %DirectCalls 2020Q1 2020Q2 -1 2. 50 % -1 3. 66 % -1 3. 33 % 1. 03 % -1 0. 09 % 4. 55 % -1 .3 5% - - - 64 .8 1% - -2 .7 8% 36 .5 9% -40.00% -20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% %MaxTeu %DirectCalls %PortLSCI 2020Q1 2020Q2 54 Figure 32. Liner shipping connectivity port Long Beach (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 33. Liner shipping connectivity port York Jersey (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Figure 34. Liner shipping connectivity port Melbourne (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) 11 .1 1% 12 .1 5% 14 .2 9% 5. 52 % 5. 12 % 9. 23 % -5 .8 8% -6 .4 7% -1 3. 33 % 18 .9 4% -0 .9 5% 10 .9 4% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity %DirectCalls 2020Q1 2020Q2 5. 13 % 3. 98 % 0. 00 % 0. 00 % 6. 07 % -2 .2 1% 0. 00 % 0. 00 % 4. 76 % 4. 76 % 3. 17 % -5 .6 7% -8.00% -6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% % ServiceCount % WeeklyPortCalls %OperatorsCount %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity 2020Q1 2020Q2 -3 .8 5% -7 .4 2% -4 .3 5% 8. 30 % -2 .3 7% -7 .7 8% -7 .6 9% -2 0. 59 % -8 .7 0% 18 .1 5% -2 .1 3% -8 .7 9% -25.00% -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity 2020Q1 2020Q2 55 Figure 35. Liner shipping connectivity port Sydney (Percentage change Q1 & Q2 2020 – Q1 & Q2 2019) Source: UNCTAD, based data sourced MDS Transmodal (www.mdst..uk). -4 .3 5% -4 .6 6% -5 .2 6% 8. 30 % 0. 52 % -8 .6 4% -8 .7 0% -6 .9 9% -1 0. 53 % 3. 08 % -1 1. 90 %-15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% %MaxTeu %DeployedCapacity 2020Q1 2020Q2 http://www.mdst..uk/ 56 Chapter 3 RESPONSE MEASURES ACROSS THE MARITIME SUPPLY CHAIN chapter considers responses adjustments introduced ports relevant stakeholders maritime supply chain mitigate pandemic’ risks alleviate impacts protecting workers ensuring business continuity. improved understanding key players maritime supply chain coped COVID-19 disruption key gaining insight level preparedness resilience shocks disruptions. Lessons learned COVID-19 crisis inform future-proofing ports maritime supply chain. support relevant policy decision-making processes seek enhance risk management resilience building maritime supply chain. Building extensive published information input received relevant stakeholders, including ports shipping companies, chapter highlights main challenges faced sector onset COVID-19 identifies key measures adopted response challenges. 3.1 PORTS early days COVID-19 crisis, ports’ resilience ability continue move cargo determined ability provide safe swift cargo handling nautical services (.., loading unloading, storage handling cargo, patrol emergency response ships, towing services, pilots, lashers, .). Keeping ports operational COVID-19 outbreak, widespread lockdowns proliferating restrictions movement travel, required ports worldwide act quickly. Action focused outbreak, safeguarding health safety port community, maintaining port operations business continuity. Ports adjusted operations altered governance communication practices. intensified collaboration users stakeholders including ensure coordinated response.19 3.1.1 Ports’ operational adjustments Port services “essential services”. , companies continue operations shutdown national economies. personnel considered essential workers, allowing participate daily port operations. allowed remain fully operational, measures ports , , slightly undermined productivity levels weeks procedures protocols “ normal”. operational adjustment prioritization “essential port activities” preserve freight transport logistics chain ensure delivery goods pandemic. “Fast lanes” medical cargo foodstuff types essential services (oil production, fuel handling, .) established. rapid lanes give priority ships line- , ensure availability pilots tugboats cargo handling services trucks. addition, lanes provide fast-track authorizations trucks leaving port ( heading port) deliver goods. special procedures extended types cargo 19 extensive published information, section adjustments introduced ports benefited information contained documents produced ports mentioned examples, insights generated discussions documents produced COVID-19 Task Force IAPH. helpful details reported () issues report Notteboom . Pallis .. (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Port Economic Impact Barometer, () IAPH (2020). WPSP COVID-19 Guidance document Ports. Information measures introduced shipping lines draws industry sources, including contributions received selected industry stakeholders view UNCTAD Review Maritime Transport 2020. 57 “-essential consumer goods”. Applied entire port logistics chain “fast lanes” effective. ensure cargo operations disrupted , time, minimizing contagion risks, ports ceased handle -essential services. , prioritized guaranteed continuity core port activities maritime access, docking, cargo operations. cases, port operations flexible. , bunkering services anchoring areas minimize docking.   Port operations adjusted enable implementation required social distancing sanitary protocols, facemasks. port terminal operators reorganized work longer shift changeover times due social distancing cleaning equipment operational vehicles (ship--shore cranes, vans, side front loaders) workers shift change. organization operational teams varies port size type cargo handled, ports operating rotation system forming teams physically interact. teams generally alternate weekly basis. larger port / terminal organizations, number people working shifts teams reduced standby team created. ports, , operational workforce. limited measures implementing protocols protect workers. , Antwerp, minimized number staff shifts, including establishing additional standby team workers. Similarly, Hamburg reduced number shifts introducing standby team. Marseilles reduced crews traffic towers, consequence limit capacity maximum simultaneous ship maneuvers port. Busan formed replacement workforce, consisting retirees, . Gothenburg introduced work rotation schemes reduce spread infection, individuals working completely separately. ensured vital expertise freight hub remained open operational. spectrum, port Houston United States continued operations, logistics services maintenance works “business usual” approach. nautical side, ports experienced increased number ships anchorage (.., containerized trade) limited storage capacity ashore (.., tanker trade). response, ports reconsidered planning optimize existing anchorage areas actively looked options extra temporary anchorage space accommodate growth demand.20 , disruptions caused COVID-19 pandemic result significant extra delays. Ports adjusted operations recorded minor delays (.., hours). operations eased ‘ normal’ parts world quarter 2020, operational working adjustments produce major delays. limited delays inevitable. include , delays loading unloading -accompanied trailers cargo Ro/Ro ships, cars car carriers due workforce distancing measures. Reporting ports noted technology intensified means addressing challenges. , web mobile phone-based release booking systems adopted major container terminals. result, ports managed avoid significant impacts cargo operations. reduced number ship calls types maritime trades cargo flows ( chapter 1 2 ) helped prevent major disruptions cargo operations. , container ship calls bigger vessels carrying cargoes ()loaded ports put pressure port authorities, terminals dock workers increase productivity order send message shippers carriers “big- ship ready” continue service increasingly bigger container vessels. Extra yard space, availability terminal (.., ship--shore cranes) yard equipment, coordination labor coordination gate operations truck rail operations larger challenge terminal operators container exchanges bigger. 20 footnote 19 . 58 , restrictions affecting inland transportation created challenges cross border crossings. , African countries, time pick cargo customs release, increased 2020, compared period 2019. Trucks longer times return departure points due restrictions imposed pandemic. number rail services, declined line demand. 21 Hinterland transport (.., inland shipping, rail road transport) distribution/warehousing remain operational avoid congestion ports / entrance area creating barriers disrupt operations potentially lead market shortages. countries, commercial services restricted, core services required transportation essential goods continue. situation worse passenger ports, passenger ship operations cruise ship activities interrupted.   3.1.2 Governance emergency response strategies: Intensified collaboration coordination Collaboration coordination intensified pandemic. Ports started organizing strategic dialogues public authorities aiming establish collectively basis response measures. important governmental emergency measures needed implemented short period time, place day. biggest ports benefited previously established emergency control plans. develop contingency plans response crisis. ports established crisis committees monitor developments propose mitigation guidelines. reportedly develop elaborate structures, including thematic subcommittees, financial social responsibility committees. ports interacting institutionally regionally focusing strategic dialogues government stakeholders professional sector associations. level engagement stakeholders actions varied. Republic Korea, port Busan launched COVID-19 Special Response Team responsible provision --clock emergency hotline staff customers; monitoring COVID-19 cases, tracking analysis health reports maritime labor staff. Europe, port Gothenburg developed regular dialogue port operators stakeholders mutual goal port operating. Amsterdam, daily consultations terminals held port area discuss impact applied measures current state play. Antwerp, dialogue developed daily meetings (calls) local community. North America, port Houston established communications terminals employees. Ports adjusted communication strategies part crisis management plans. ports communications clients, terminals, government agencies port community status operations, implemented responses, contingency measures safety procedures employees port community members. devoted attention communication dialogue stakeholders. Managing risk perception, clear transparent communications key preserving reputation, avoiding tensions undesired situations , , ensuring business continuity. Communication Strategy Port Rotterdam provide good . 22 port issued communication ensure -reaching social impact pandemic, port remained operational cargo handling continued unabated. required Harbor Master Division monitor safety public order water 24/7. Port Authority informed carefully complying recommendations national authorities field health safety steps safeguard continuity business operations. key message effort avoid disrupting cargo handling process broader sense (.., shipping handling related 21 footnote 19 . 22 Port Rotterdam (2020). Corona virus port Rotterdam. March. 59 port processes; hinterland transport processes warehousing). addition, efforts advise clients stakeholders informed relevant developments. Mombasa port Kenya . port gateway East Central Africa connects goods consumers Northern Corridor. member Northern Corridor East Africa Community (EAC) includes road networks, railways, inland waterways, linked vast hinterland comprising Uganda, Burundi, Eastern Democratic Republic Congo, Northern Tanzania, South Sudan, Somalia , Ethiopia. address numerous challenges resulting pandemic affecting trade transport logistics region, Northern Corridor EAC Secretariat initiated online platform key stakeholders meet discuss issues related Corridor Trade Facilitation. meetings bring stakeholders Northern Corridor Member States aim sharing experiences exchange views challenges opportunities arising pandemic. platform real-time updates happening Member States, transit transport node Corridor.23 3.1.3 Measures support business profitability financial returns Business ports impacted sectors economy. noted preceding chapters, downward trend projected world GDP growth, COVID-19 induced lockdowns / restricted function economies reduced maritime trade, disrupted cargo flows, reduced number ship calls, falling connectivity levels. ports opportunities recover volumes handled pandemic, attract cargo flows tools mitigate financial consequences pandemic. ports stakeholders supply chain mapped potential financial impact disruptions caused pandemic modeled scenarios relating ports’ exposure impact changing cargo volumes revenues. ports referred financial difficulties faced. ports experienced slight declines revenues manageable disruption operations.24 situation demanding fully privatized profit-oriented ports. British ports , prioritized concerns relating borrowings banking covenants. exceptional circumstances generated crisis banking covenants restrictive difficult meet. implications ports’ ability access capital invest meet customers’ existing future . planned similar investments eventually deferred cancelled, lenders protect investments reluctant show flexibility covenants ports additional ‘recovery’ loans capital assets fixed. Data collected British Ports Association (BPA)25 showed 55 cent United Kingdom’ ports satisfied existing public mechanisms funding British enterprises address challenges caused pandemic called Government COVID-19 debt underwriting schemes. ports, financial stability achieved inter alia, practices: ▪ Defer suspend investment CAPEX savings -regret suspension.  ▪ Place contracting -hold. ▪ Reconsider adapt discretionary spending (.., marketing, advertising). ▪ Negotiate extending payment terms suppliers reserve cash.  23 Northern Corridor East Africa Community (2020). Northern Digest Corridor. 4. June. 24 general, financial risk probability level impact typically based classical scenarios: Level 1 – Minimum Impact: () cargo flows port calls, (ii) slight decline revenues; (iii) manageable disruption operations; Level 2- Severe Impact: () shut terminals operations; (ii) land-lease revenue impact; (iii) cargo handling revenue impact; (iv) severe impact pro loss probable multi-year effect; () operational disruptions controlled environment; Level 3– Liquidity Crisis: () severe descent revenue levels; (ii) future feasibility business case impacted. 25 British Ports Association (2020). UK Ports: Coronavirus Economic Recovery Plan 2020 . London. 60 ▪ Evaluate cost position create mid long-term term blueprint cost saving opportunities (optimize general administrative costs, run procurement savings programs, implement - based budget, .)   port charges, revenue-generating stakeholders requested revision payments port dues, concession fees . Ports’ responses requests varied local legislation (.., state aid rules) apply. response depends commercial relations governance model port. impact COVID-19 pandemic varied region governmental aid / support programs . notable Port Authority Valencia (PAV) facilitated urgent compensatory measures contribute mitigate negative effects crisis users providers. Specifically, PAV streamlined payments 250 supplier companies provide liquidity companies working port. objective initiative weekly payments minimize treasury difficulties port providers . measure, implemented early March 19, forced PAV establish internal mechanisms process invoices quickly . , PAV planned advance 2019 pending rebates clients implemented reduction rates affecting port dues, concession fees, minimum activity rates penalties affecting traffic thresholds.26 Ports address challenges imposed COVID-19 disruption tenants. Hamburg Port Authority (HPA), proceeded deferral rents charges port operations. Subject informal written application HPA,27 tenants port apply interest-free deferral building property rents April, June. , sea inland shipping companies port barge operators apply similar deferral payment port fees. measure provide discounts mooring fees relieve burden environmentally friendly ships extent. decisive factor - called Tier level ships, international classification air emissions.28 3.1.4 Adjusting working conditions ports Adjustments working conditions introduced ports, terminals, depots, warehouses, trucking, rail barge activities, continued operations crisis permitted governmental rules. early March 2020, ports introduced adjustments helped mitigate risks. Shortage personnel ( dock workers administration) limited progressive return work / place major disruptions reported (Figure 36). adjustment working practices, crisis management involved group decisions personnel. Hiring plans frozen; -critical training activities cancelled. Rotation part time working programs temporary unemployment / leave receiving social wage support allowed national local labor laws. short-term reactions crisis, practices remain place longer periods worth monitoring. Port authority staff relocated departments critically involved execution COVID-19 mitigation measures. 26 Port Valencia (2020). Valenciaport pays 3.6 million weeks liquidity supplier companies. Press Release. 9 April. 27 Port Hamburg (2020). Coronavirus Port Hamburg: Deferral rents charges port operations. 28For additional information http://www.imo.org. 61 Figure 36. Proportion ports reporting shortage port-related workers, Weeks 15-27, 2020 Source: Notteboom . Pallis .. (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Port Economic Impact Barometer. administrative personnel, ports assigned home office entire relevant workforce adopted case--case approach. limited “ -essential people” opted “working home ”. approach required “working home vulnerable people employees age, pregnant employees, employees small children, underlying health issues entitled work home assessment -house committee. implementation telecommuting easy information technology telecommunications infrastructure limitations posed challenges cases. remote work authorization regime particularities varies port. parts labor force continuing work site, established secondary office, relocating small number employees minimize disruption case potential quarantine main office. secondary office - major business roles. Ports proactively implemented special procedures truck drivers, included checking body temperature, facilitating identification access, establishing social distancing guidelines. Sanitary measures strictly implemented ports line rules recommendations established national local authorities. rules recommendations considered defining internal terminal operations protocols. Social distance, utilization personal protection equipment, disinfection types installations establishment protocols people interactions key measures. ports prohibited domestic international travel, institutional visits face- - face meetings, special exceptions. Ports postpone cancel events, receptions -essential training courses. countries France, travel meeting restrictions imposed governmental authorities / quarantine days put place banning flights. restrictions travelling impossible. , terminal operations, specific recommendations launched implications port services including pilots dockers. include keeping safety distance working environment, disinfecting working spaces surveillance potential positives, letting vulnerable workers leave home. Pilots specific protocols access ships specific requirements ship deck. Dockers encouraged form “stable” gangs members avoid mixing group dockers shifts. 16% 16% 16% 22% 19% 17% 16% 13% 13% 14% 00% 05% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W23 W25 W27 Ddockworkers Technical-nautical services Harbour master services Port Authority 62 3.2 INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SHIP AND SHORE-BASED PERSONNEL ports actively considered ways support users stakeholders ensure business continuity alleviate pandemic’ impact maritime supply chain. concerns interaction seafarers shore-based personnel port calls due differences regimes procedures mitigate risk infection crew members board ships (set flag States shipping companies) shore-based workers (set national local authorities). Requirements guidance differ country country company company differences apply manage risks suggest parties procedures, procedures required responsible party. response, IAPH International Chamber Shipping (ICS) developed specific guidelines ensure safe shipboard interface ship- shore-based personnel.29 port Houston , developed similar guidelines operations employed Houston Ship Channel Area. Special care provisions applied interactions stevedores dockers, labor interacts crew. Germany, port Hamburg prepared quarantine zones restrain infected crew / passengers. France, port Marseilles put place organizational measures including limited access terminal, closure access pedestrians special garbage cans professional pick- masks gloves dedicated area destruction material. Malaysia, Port Klang introduced strict screening port workers crews arriving ships. People affected areas showing symptoms denied entry referred hospitals. Canada, port Vancouver waived requirement bunker supplier crew board client ship complete bunker checklists. Initially, small number ports worldwide authorized docking cruise ships humanitarian assistance. protocols operations expanded, practice extended ports geographical regions. 3.2.1 Treating (suspected) COVID-19 cases treatment ships suspected actual contamination cases ports local authorities governed decisions health authorities region. Ports, ships, crew comply recommendations pandemic’ protocols preventive measures issued competent entities (.., federal, state, municipal, health authorities ). Measures varied additional restrictions procedures limited impact operations. addition, pro-active, voluntary actions identified, designation dedicated berths ( ) ships suspected cases onboard implementation quarantine areas land treatment. limits adopted related ship moves avoid port entrance exit ships time, stressing nautical services (pilots, mooring services, tugs). cases, restrictions ship movements night. protocols treating suspected COVID-19 cases, case ports Europe North America, ships’ quarantine procedures applied avoid critical berths service due quarantined ships. Ports applied advanced contingency plans action ships protocols clearance enter port. Reports COVID-19 patients suspected cases board, activated responsive measures, patrol boats intercepted offshore bring victims sanitary control measures, ships anchored ports days authorization call port’ wharfs sanitary international health officers harbor master, . increase number ships face longer stay anchorage implies additional safety concerns addressed ports terminals. include higher probability exposure extreme 29 ICS IAPH (2020). COVID-19 Related Guidelines Ensuring Safe Shipboard Interface Ship Shore-Based Personnel. 6 . 63 weather conditions grounding collision risks. response, ports formulate proactively communicate policies anchorage areas. ports Rotterdam Hamburg, seagoing ships required submit Maritime Declaration Health (MDoH) arriving , piloted , port, situation board. MDoH stipulates ship reports member crew passenger board ill WHO-classified risk area, port’ quarantine plan activated, infectious disease physician contacted. cases, port Antwerp, crew members onshore due shipping lines advice. ports, including port Houston, actions, precautions quarantine imposed case--case basis. 3.2.2 Crew Crew continue major challenge maritime transport. early days pandemic, carriers implemented preventive measures reduce exposure risks ports terminals. measures include temporary suspension crew prohibiting crews disembarking port terminals. understanding short-term, restrictions remain largely place response public health emergency presented COVID- 19. cases, sanitary corridors set return seafarers countries origin conveniently supply crew members ships. , crisis lasting weeks, restrictions crew major concern shipping community, humanitarian, safety employment-related reasons. Seafarers hard hit working long periods sea due closure borders restrictions movement people. mid- 2020 onwards, situation triggered global search coordinated strategy involving key stakeholders ease restrictions facilitate changeover ships’ crews. primarily issue governmental decisions requires participation relevant stakeholders nearby airports, shipping lines ports, stakeholders maritime supply chain, engaged discussions providing local answers crew . local level, ports introduced limited exceptions crew bans, inter alia humanitarian reasons. IAPH-WPSP survey impact pandemic Week 29 2020 reported limited number crew occurred European ports, economies gradually eased lockdowns. North America, crew remain levels Central South America crew change situation remains precarious. report highlighted importance coordination secure crews board ships repatriated seaport world. main problem arises factors control port. ports, port authorities immigration offices crew , regular/commercial international flights completing operation. case nearest international airport operation reported 1,600 km private car bus hire transfer crew, means transportation. , regulators international crew travel domestic flights 14-day isolation period passed. countries crew change allowed. ports maritime sanitary authority established protocol crew change. countries clear distinction ships based flag crew prohibited case foreign-flagged ships nationally registered ships change nationals onboard. crew members travel confirm marine credentials carry letters employer border controls. reopening borders expected decisive impact, providing conditions crew place. efforts international level address crew problem, time writing, issue remains concern. ICS, coordination maritime industry, supported International Organization (IMO) formulation 12-step framework protocols crew . standards circulated ports stakeholders recommendation implementing . early July 2020, 13 countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, 64 United Kingdom United States) agreed international measures open foreign borders seafarers increase number commercial flights expedite repatriation efforts. list measures includes addressing bureaucratic challenges, facilitation visa issuance, quarantine border crossing exceptions seafarers. 3.2.3 Humanitarian actions framework corporate social responsibility activities, ports continued support ongoing projects develop initiatives tackling current COVID-19 related challenges. Port practices include direct purchasing, distribution donation medical supplies cleaning products port community donating health agencies local authorities. ports, combined establishing partnerships port community stakeholders financially support medical research maintenance medical equipment COVID-19 treatment (.., maintenance/repair mechanical respirators) providing hygienic kits port workers port commercial visitors (.., truck drivers). 3.3 SHIPPING OPERATIONS difficult operating conditions triggered COVID-19, shipping lines ensured continuity maritime trade flows, essential goods food, critical agricultural products, raw materials, medical equipment vital supplies. carriers, success reflects extent, capacity act quickly. height pandemic, shipping proved traditional role trade facilitator. 2020 truck rail movements restricted, shipping lines work shippers short-sea shipping networks reliable alternative road transport. helped avoid land-border blockages created government actions limit movement people. 3.3.1 Capacity management revision capacity management plans shipping schedules key feature adjustments introduced shipping lines. Consolidated carriers managed capacity blank sailings , competition 20 global carriers vying business operated capacity drove rates . 2020, cargo volumes depressed, East-West trade carrier alliances, , 2M (Maersk, MSC), THE Alliance (Hapag-Lloyd, ONE, Yang Ming), Ocean Alliance (CMA CGM/APL, COSCO/OOCL, Evergreen), introduced blank sailings tailored container shipping capacity match demand levels. Capacity management, digitalization (.., advanced information exchange), ship stowage planning procedures (.., software enables checking loadable weight, stability .) leveraged maximize ship utilization. Alliances reported increased loading ULCS, adding pressure ports maritime supply chain requiring operational upgrades. , early July 2020, ONE (Ocean Network Express) recorded highest loading 20,000 TEU class ship utilizing 97 cent containership MOL Tribute’ 20,100 TEU capacity.30 adjustments finding storage cargo forwarding solutions crucial keeping maritime trade flowing. important utilization existing facilities storage warehousing capacity. addition blank sailing suspension service, shipping lines innovate service storage solutions minimize booking cancelations shippers. MSC introduced Suspension Transit (SoT) container shipping program world’ leading transshipment 30 World Cargo News (2020). Record box load ONE. 8 July. 65 hubs Bremerhaven, Busan, King Abdullah Port, Lomé, Port Rodman PSA Panama International Terminal, Tekirdağ Asyaport advance yard storage shippers quickly move goods anticipation demand recovery.31 flexibility cost savings enabling shippers control storage costs point booking, adapting delivery date . helped decrease congestion ports discharge improve efficiency, products closer distribution networks. time, solutions . , -introducing service discontinued perfectly suited environment partial recovery cargo volumes route. 3.3.2 Freight rates Effective capacity management liner shipping companies helped prevent collapse freight rates. Contrary 2008-2009 financial crisis, freight rates remained strong carriers observed strict capacity management approach. short-term, key question relates levels freight rates recovery. case alliances choose maintain sailings time increasing demand increasing rates add capacity market, reducing rates. economic fallout accelerates cargo demand sinks , alliances break opt market share price. implies blank sailings problems shippers containerized cargo. 3.3.3 regional SIDS case-study: Shipping Pacific Island Countries pandemic’ impact Pacific SIDS long lasting critical. disruption caused pandemic showcased resilience island countries, exposed heavy reliance shipping main mode transport. Lockdowns Pacific SIDS resulted ships diverted countries blank sailings reduction cargo throughput. short period time, World Food Programme (WFP) United Nations bodies activated COVID-19 response team collect data pandemic’ implications shipping share information,32 region’ stakeholders advice International Labour Organization (ILO), IMO, ICS, . Plans systems put place teams government officials trained briefed. Shipping issues longer predominantly resulting quarantine restrictions uncertainty, massive reductions demand shutdown international tourism industry lack goods exported SIDS key supply hubs. case COVID-19 recorded Lautoka, Fiji, international port closed (19 March 2020) ships diverted.33 Cook Islands government reacted subsidizing inter-island shipping northern islands ensure essential cargo delivered. Marshall Islands impact inter-island shipping. Restrictions affected sector. delays experienced Solomon Islands Marshall Islands quarantine regulations caused delays shipping services. Pacific SIDS cargo vessels tankers considered essential services permitted maintain schedules observing strict quarantine conditions.34 significant drop throughput international Pacific ports, reported instances food shortages, atoll States. Import export volumes dropped, similar reduction observed demand, 31 Mediterranean Shipping Company (2020). Suspension Transit. https://www.msc./che/-services/sot. 32 World Food Programme Logistics Cluster publish weekly update international shipping situation Pacific SIDS identifying national quarantine requirements, ship schedules, issues, sources information advice, . https://logcluster.org/ops/pacific. 33 Singh Indra (2020). PM announces major restrictions including closure services due COVID-19. Fiji Broadcasting Corporation. 19 March. 34 World Food Programme (2020). Logistics Cluster Shipping Operations. 13 . https://logcluster.org/sites/default/files/pacific_logistics_cluster_shipping_operations_update_200513.pdf. https://www.msc./che/-services/sot https://logcluster.org/ops/pacific 66 imported goods. Zealand feeder service Fiji reduced sailings month. blank sailings region. lines omitting Micronesian ports servicing frequently. , surcharges increases shipping costs imposed carriers (Table 56). increased costs international shipping customer significantly fuel prices. impacts pandemic include shortage equipment spares, 20’ TEU longer unloaded Federated States Micronesia, Tuvalu, Kiribati Marshall Islands. Table 56. Surcharges increases Pacific SIDS shipping costs Shipping line Additional charges Application Australian National Line US$300 (20’FCL), $600 (40’FCL) $15/m3 (break-bulk). Temporary surcharge cover quarantine requirements Solomon Islands (resulting ships spending days awaiting clearance -day voyage). Neptune Pacific Line US$ 349/TEU, US$ 25/revenue (break-bulk). Temporary quarantine surcharge Pacific ports. US$ 100/TEU. Freight cost increase shipments Australia NZ Fiji 3 5 July 2020. Pacific Direct Line US$ 100/TEU. Rate restoration charge shipments Asia Pacific ports 15 July 2020. Swire Shipping US$ 150 (20’FCL), $300 (40’FCL) $8.50/revenue ton (break-bulk). Rate restoration charge shipments Fiji. US$ 163-285 (20’FCL), $326-570 (40’FCL) $10-16.75/m3 (break-bulk). Additional quarantine surcharge applied ships calling Honiara. Source: World Food Programme (2020). Logistics Cluster Shipping Operations.10 18 June Update. 3.3.4 operational (working) adjustments shipping lines reports outbreak emerged January 2020, shipping companies immediately implement health-protection measures ships, infrastructure, offices, line official guidance WHO compliance recommendations national authorities. measures introduced countries height crisis, requirement ships equipped protection equipment hand sanitizer, gloves masks. company policies restricted crew mingling people shore ports. Remote working home dominant practice. Beginning shipping lines offices China January 2020, practice implemented countries virus continued spread worldwide. Shifting remote working part shipping lines business continuity processes. global ban business travel cancellation visits headquarters local offices colleagues, customers, suppliers. early January, advice local management China, country cases COVID-19 reported. International meetings conducted videoconferencing channels. Operational flexibility implementing existing business continuity plans ensured operations customer service continued people avoided travel observed confinement social distancing rules. bigger shipping lines, capacity shift functions offices support centers regions shared services, part existing plans established prior pandemic. response measures effective maintaining services ashore supporting ships sea. shipping lines, challenge identify procedures enable crew . severe impact seafarers resulted governmental restrictions banning crew ports world due limited capacity provide effectively adjusted protocols, intentions ship operators provide relief. record number people technology video conferencing work remotely, challenges emerged. massive technology workers triggered upgrade skills knowledge respect online conferencing efficient online 67 workspaces. heightened awareness digital tools resilient future business continuity shocks. Preserving essential close contact relationships customers obvious component face--face meetings challenge. Shipping lines, ports, adapt operating procedures regularly advise customers manage change. COVID-19 crisis case greater investment digital platforms processes compelling. Digitalization documentation booking processes, -business tools equipment’’ online connectivity, rose key solution increasing resilience maritime supply chain securing business continuity crisis. 3.4 LANDSIDE OPERATIONS Maintaining landside operations difficult task stakeholders involved maritime supply chain. Long queues borders highlighted importance reliable chains crises. Ports experienced substantial problems availability cross-border trucking services. faced, lesser extent, delays due difficulties undermining trucks movements ports. applicable, barge services disrupted weeks pandemic, recovered Week 20 2020. , reports IAPH port members suggest problematic situation case rail services (Figure 37). difficulties affect maritime countries . Land-locked transit countries maintain access seaports. important transit countries regional organizations continue support transit transport trade corridors maintain customs transit regimes. transit impeded increased health controls slowing flow goods destined land-locked countries, coordination needed ensure special procedures lanes transit traffic. International organizations key role play respect. UNCTAD, , supports cooperation transit countries land-locked developing countries, inter alia, Empowerment Program National Transit Coordinators Transport Corridor program. Figure 37. Ports reporting hinterland transport delays compared normal activity (Percentage ports) Source: Notteboom Theo Pallis . Athanasios (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Port Economic Impact Barometer; issues. Restrictions cross-border traffic contributed creating difficulties. caused occasional obstacles, exact effects difficult understood. restriction enter neighboring countries, quarantine drivers 14 days trip continues, shortage public health staff borders, administrative issues led delays. hinterland trucking services -established normal schedule reopening economies, albeit strict enforcement temperature screening, face masks, . measures place environment reduced trade volumes. Authorities federal 68 state levels continue efforts align relevant measures avoid procedures impact operations. Brazil, United States examples Americas state level initiatives varied states. Europe’ efforts detail ‘green lanes’ fast transportation essential goods European national level. Interestingly, positive developments reported. note improved programming port operators loading unloading operations involving trucks rail cars reduced trade flows. cases, trucks port allowed essential goods , trucks rapidly reported adopted terminals’ adjusted booking systems quick, coordinated release containers. , rail services ports negatively impacted limited lack demand international rail owing applied restrictions. Adapting landside operations cope COVID-19 pandemic, uniform universal. cases, port Mombasa difficulties faced. 35 Corridor performance indicators deteriorated pandemic, border crossing times affected . Queues trucks waiting clearance common border crossings reported stretched 50 km 2020. Congestion observed border crossings due measures COVID-19 disease testing truck drivers. Transit time increased average 3 days 8 days 648 km. disruptions led delays, return empty containers Port Mombasa. delays attract retention charges shipping lines adding cost business. , port Mombasa joined forces stakeholders supply chain calling harmonized regional guidelines common response measures cross-border transportation health services. guidelines issued, specific measures place, including regional COVID-19 surveillance system trucks extending free cargo storage period transit import export containers. 3.5 SUPPLY CHAINS survey measuring effect pandemic global supply chains36 revealed implications widespread. 59.2 cent shipping freight professionals world significantly affected COVID-19 pandemic 25 cent ‘moderately affected’. shipping freight experienced volume declines hit transit delays. 50 cent hit delays port customers 40 cent address issues related lack capacity. Operations challenged inconsistent volume demand, financial factors increased costs late -payment clients cancelled credit lines physical carriers. results survey established adaptation. total 37 cent respondents stated experienced partial supply chain shut significant freight delays. 36 cent problems delayed freight days. , 9 cent experienced complete supply chain shut 14 cent stated supply chain adapt problem. admitted, , prepared . future, irrespective variations expectations speed levels recovery, 10 professionals potential change shipping supply chain strategy based experience COVID-19 experience. Supply chains adapting crisis 92 cent specific survey takers arguing experienced disruptions managed adjust varying degrees. learning curve single country effectively prepared handle impact pandemic entire supply chain. acknowledged , evidence flexibility built 35 Northern Corridor Transit Transport Coordination Authority (2020). Northern Corridor Digest. Issue 4. June. 36 Shipping Freight Resource (2020). Survey impact COVID-19 supply chains. https://shippingandfreightresource./supply-chain-strategies-post-COVID-19-impact-survey. https://shippingandfreightresource./supply-chain-strategies-post-COVID-19-impact-survey 69 global supply chains shipping operations, change needed part post-pandemic recovery efforts post pandemic. Respondents survey referred investments technology (67 cent), employees (33 cent), assets (26 cent), acquisitions (13 cent) aspects (12 cent). 3.6 DIGITALISATION Digitalization crucial continuity maritime supply chain pandemic. Port Community Systems (PCS), Single Windows (SW) electronic exchange platforms, , played critical role COVID-19 crisis. Digital infrastructure facilitated trade cross border logistics simplifying administrative regulatory processes. frequently reported crisis organizations managing electronic platforms easily transfer operations office home provide quality services trusted parties. crisis electronic platforms critical . Stakeholders highly dependent digitalization expertise supply chain underscored importance.37 Port Authority Valencia, “Port Community Systems integration supply chain trend follow order foster resilience innovation based 4.0 technologies key element competitiveness scarce traffic environment”.38 Bearing mind developments, port decided launch Strategic Plan ensure preparedness face “ normal”. entail digital, innovative, responsible, carbon neutral resilient ports. Shipping lines’ perspective differ illustrated position MSC.39 view “ realistic expect slow recovery pandemic, major hit global economy technologies play crucial part”. previously noted, practice working remotely extensively applied, videoconferencing online meetings proved substitutes face--face meetings. resistance change working methods crisis , demands additional support government digitalization maritime supply chain processes . Paperless procedures added calls types digitalization advancements, including cybersecurity sharing information. line logistics sector, maritime transport undergoing technological transformation high support dematerialized processes calls “ online remote procedures included” “improvements terms transparency flexible supply chains change based real-time events/impacts”. calls “ manpower management systems”, “enhancement IT capabilities”, “integration digitized paperless workflows”, “ introduction automation”. transformation multidimensional, including remote planning managing administrative operational tasks. integral part transport logistics , representing clusters businesses , ports - fully grasp potential generated technological innovation. stated IAPH, “ COVID-19 crisis painfully demonstrated heterogeneous landscape exists ports worldwide”. 48 174 IMO Member States functioning Port Community Systems date, systems considered cornerstone ‘smart’ port.40 Accelerating digitalization process avoid human physical interactions trade logistics, . 37 International Port Community Systems Association (2020). Considerations Practicalities Port Community Systems, Single Window electronic exchange platforms. 38 contribution Port Authority Valencia UNCTAD Review Maritime Transport 2020. 39 contribution Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) UNCTAD Review Maritime Transport 2020. 40 IAPH (2020). Accelerating Digitalisation Maritime Trade Logistics: Call Action. . 70 emerging developing countries, trade logistic processes documentation paper- based require massive, multi-stakeholder physical human intervention.41 Digitalization paperless maritime supply chain raise, concerns, . stability operations, safety crew staff, capabilities information technology infrastructure , , potential human resource shortage due absence skilled personnel, concerns. Remote data access means codes working management practices remote teams system monitoring. digitalization, future proofing maritime supply chain requires reliable forecasts trends risks. call service providers cargo owners “ forecast predictions” “creation tools anticipate disruptions”. improve transparency ensure actions responses build evidence-based assessments events impacts. , ports aware trade patterns resulting COVID-19 disruptions prepare infrastructure operations . 3.7 BACK TO BUSINESS companies, ports world started developing work planning created special committees tackle issue. COVID-19 pandemic resulting lockdown economies, imposing adjustments working, operational, regulatory conditions, developing return--work strategy emerged, continues emerge, demanding procedure. , strategic plan work place safe environment ensure employees confidently return routine called ‘ normal’ working life, essential. Aiming advance practice, IAPH developed return--work guidance, aiming ports worldwide face challenge, providing menu options based practices ports worldwide. aim support implementation actions required prepare alleviate COVID- 19 related contingencies port terminals relevant stakeholders. addition, actions foster open collaboration mitigate pandemic. IAPH guidance work planning, accompanied annexes return phase definitions, ways organize teams work, suggestions ventilation, cleaning disinfection, suggestions personnel protective equipment , includes :42 • Protocols, detailed procedures, prevention guidance, return conditions, hygiene social distancing measures. • Advice personnel expected side port protocols change adapt coronavirus conditions (.., facemask wearing, travelling / work, follow local legislative guidance, maintaining operational environment .). • Suggestions advancing teleworking limiting indoor meetings, visitors / external meetings international travel) advanced sanitary measures testing establishing partnerships testing labs. • Suggestions detail procedures practices () port employee entering leaving port areas offices; () port employee mobility workplace; () shift patterns working groups; () safe indoor outdoor static workstations; () meetings; () communal areas; () facilitation positive workplace mind-set. 41 Secretary General UNCTAD Kituyi . (2020). Coronavirus: ' ships moving, ports open cross-border trade flowing. 25 March. 42IAPH-WPSP (2020). Guidance ports’ response coronavirus pandemic. Antwerp. 71 Implementing practices require capacity building efforts. UNCTAD TrainForTrade Port Management Programme (PMP), development training capacity building entitled “Building Port Resilience Pandemics”. capacity building package blocks: () crisis protocol communication strategy, (ii) staff - resilience, (iii) technology preparedness, (iv) cargo flow continuity, . training package port communities worldwide. supporting recovery facilitating business, public policy initiatives important. , flurry stimulus packages introduced developed developing countries, albeit variations magnitude focus. country adopted type measure, large variations response actions regions supranational regional institutions. , EU limit relief measures support economic operators ( March 2020 relieve emerging financial pressures), medium-term (2021-2024) economic relief packages address economic recovery ensure sustainable development European industry years . support continued freight flows preserve supply chains, EU , addition, adopted extensive list initiatives,43 focus maritime transport sector, include: • Guidelines border management measures protect health ensure availability goods. • Communication Commission implementation Green Lanes; essential services. • Guidelines protection health, repatriation travel arrangements seafarers. • Proposal amendment Ports Services Regulation (EU) 2017/352, give Member States port authorities additional flexibility waive, reduce, suspend defer port infrastructure charges due period 1 March 2020 31 December 2020. • Interpretative guidelines passenger rights provisions EU passenger rights legislation applied context COVID-19 outbreak. • Proposal Regulation laying specific temporary measures view COVID-19 outbreak validity certificates, licenses authorizations postponement periodic checks training areas transport legislation. • network national transport contact points reinforce cooperation coordination issues related transport. • Tourism Transport Package, gradually lift travel restrictions 13 , guidelines general principles gradual resumption passenger transport detailed recommendations measures maritime sector. International organizations proceeded similar initiatives. respect cooperation World Customs Organization (WCO) WHO providing list Harmonized System codes critical medical equipment, apply express clearance release goods. 43 European Commission’ website “COVID-19: Overview Commission’ response”. Accessed 12 September 2020. 72 3.8 KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED cope disruption continue link supply chains enable smooth cargo flows, key stakeholders maritime supply chain ports shipping key players, adopted range response risk mitigation measures. Responses varied covered aspects included () operational adjustments; () financial/economic adjustments; () sanitary protocols processes; () adjustments working practices organizational aspects. Responses crisis ‘ work practices’ varied scope type capacity active prompt interventions proved crucial. responses ports entailed substantial reorganization operations. include () prioritization essential services; () reorganization operations working conditions due sanitary protocols; () advancement digitalization communication strategies. Existing contingency plans facilitated quick responses crisis shipping ports Stakeholders lacked plans, ad hoc responses develop plans short period time crisis. Digitalization interactions information sharing critical continuity maritime transport operations pandemic. Digitalization emerged key component transport supply chain resilience building efforts. Working operational adjustment measures helped sector adapt transformational maritime supply chain stakeholders. Digitalization processes technology workforce triggered revisit operations upgrade knowledge skills. Adjustments working practices limit personnel shortages Ports diffuse risks allowed telecommuting, implemented sanitary protocols including social distancing, rearranged working shifts, limited meetings travelling, advantage relevant social policies, greater technology. Similar adjustments adopted shipping lines. ports managed avoid significant disruptions cargo handling operations. facilitated reduced number ship port calls reduced maritime trade flows. ports, financial implications crisis manifold pronounced case fully privatized ports. include () difficulties ports continue financing, (ii) limited financial capacities port providers constrained lockdowns suppressed demand, (iii) challenges imposed ports users. capacity ports adopt urgent compensatory measures, , advantage cash flows early payment providers, delay payments users, contributed mitigate negative effects crisis. revision capacity management plans shipping schedules key feature adjustment measures introduced shipping lines face demand. consolidation trends marked industry seemingly worked favor carriers occasion. Container freight rates collapsed. remained strong carriers closely managed capacity. Challenges ‘crew ’ highlighted orchestrating integrated approach . Crew major issues faced maritime supply chain. largely due difficulties related parties (.., airports, public policies imposing restrictions travelling, .). Developing guidelines ensure safe interface ship shore-based personnel critical, due nature crisis. place local international level support relevant industry associations international organizations. Maintaining landside operations difficult, developing regions. Long queues borders highlighted importance reliable chains navigate crises disruptions. 73 difficulties affect maritime countries . Land-locked transit countries maintain access seaports . Shippers ports worked address land-side operations, ability adapt effective. shipping ports, main instruments address issues digitalization enhanced communications coordination stakeholders public authorities. Responding COVID-19 challenges required collaboration coordination stakeholders. established, collective actions effective combating risks improving resilience. capacity coordinate national / local authorities communicate actors chain critical. Adjustments governance communication strategies parties involved equally instrumental. implications crisis COVID-19 long lasting SIDS. levels connectivity deteriorate, case-study analyzing Pacific SIDS revealed decision divert single ship countries, absence ship call, single operator due reduction cargo destination key export markets, put test ability maritime transport deliver essential goods. increase shipping costs SIDS. small island countries develop risk mitigation capabilities resilience building. supporting recovery facilitating business, public policy initiatives important. , flurry stimulus packages introduced developed developing countries, albeit variations magnitude focus. country adopted type measure, large variations response actions regions supranational regional institutions. initiatives include economic operational measures adopted national level, challenge countries align federal state level initiatives. Supranational institutions international organizations adopted long list initiatives. Transport service providers cargo owners called forecast predictions tools anticipate disruptions enhance supply chain transparency flexibility. acknowledged ports aware trade patterns prepare adapt infrastructure operations . Anticipating preparing face future disruptions key improving risk management resilience building. 74 References British Ports Association (2020). UK Ports: Coronavirus Economic Recovery Plan 2020 . London. Damas Philip Heaney Simon (2020). Covid-19 container shipping market operational issues update. Drewry Special Webinar. 14 . IAPH (2020). Accelerating Digitalisation Maritime Trade Logistics: Call Action. . IAPH-WPSP (2020). Guidance ports’ response coronavirus pandemic. Antwerp. ICS IAPH (2020). COVID-19 Related Guidelines Ensuring Safe Shipboard Interface Ship Shore- Based Personnel. 6 . IMF (2020). World Economic Outlook Update. June. IPCSA (2020). Considerations Practicalities Port Community Systems. Single Window electronic exchange platforms. Knowler Greg (2020). Alliances outline extensive blank sailings Q3. 3 June. Ojala Lauri (2020). impact COVID 19 global supply chains transport sector. PowerPoint presentation. 1 April. Mediterranean Shipping Company (2020). Suspension Transit. https://www.msc./che/-services/sot. MFAME (2020). Lesser Blank Sailing Trans-pacific implies positive trend Q3. https://mfame.guru/lesser-blank- sailings--trans-pacific-implies-positive-trend--q3. Accessed 30 June. Port Hamburg (2020). Coronavirus Port Hamburg: Deferral rents charges port operations. Port Los Angeles (2020). Port Los Angeles, MSC, APM terminals ILWU set world record cargo moves single ship call. PLA. 19 June. Port Rotterdam (2020). Corona virus port Rotterdam, March. Northern Corridor Transit Transport Coordination Authority (2020). Northern Corridor Digest. Issue 4. June. Notteboom Theo Pallis . Athanasios (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-10 Port Economic Impact Barometer. 9. Antwerp: IAPH-WPSP. Notteboom Theo Pallis . Athanasios (2020). IAPH-WPSP COVID-19 Port Economic Impact Barometer. Issue 11. Antwerp: IAPH-WPSP. Secretary General UNCTAD Kituyi . (2020). Coronavirus: ' ships moving, ports open cross-border trade flowing. 25 March. Shipping Freight Resource (2020). Survey impact COVID-19 supply chains. Singh Indra. (2020). PM announces major restrictions including closure services due COVID-19. Fiji Broadcasting Corporation. 19 March. UNCTAD (2020). UNCTAD Global Trade Update. June. UNCTAD (2020). Review Maritime Transport 2020 (forthcoming). Geneva York. Workers Rights Consortium (2020). https://www.workersrights.org/issues/COVID-19/tracker. Accessed 24 June. World Bank (2020). COVID-19 Trade Watch #3 - Signs Recovery 29 June. World Cargo News (2020). Record box load ONE. 8 July. World Food Programme (2020). Logistics Cluster Shipping Operations Update. issues. World Trade Organization (2019). World Trade Statistical Review. Geneva. https://www.msc./che/-services/sot https://mfame.guru/lesser-blank-sailings--trans-pacific-implies-positive-trend--q3 https://mfame.guru/lesser-blank-sailings--trans-pacific-implies-positive-trend--q3 https://www.workersrights.org/issues/COVID-19/tracker TA ITED ATIO AT COVID-19 Maritime Transport Impact Responses TRANSPORT AND TRADE FACILITATION Series 15TRA TR FA ILITATIO eries 15 COVID-19 aritim Transport Im pact Responses Printed United Nations, Geneva – 2103811 () – March 2021 – 130 – UNCTAD/DTL/TLB/2021/1

Bibliographic type

Book

Referenced

COVID-19 and maritime transport: Impact and responses

Webinar on COVID-19 and maritime transport: Disruptions and resilience in Latin America and the Caribbean

Webinar on COVID-19 and maritime transport: Disruption and resilience in Asia

Webinar on COVID-19 and maritime transport: Disruption and resilience in Africa

We help developing countries benefit from the global economy more fairly and effectively, providing data and analysis, facilitating consensus-building and offering technical assistance on issues related to trade and development.

We help countries achieve inclusive, sustainable growth by transforming the ambitions of the Sustainable Development Goals into actions that deliver concrete results. Our work focuses on:

We provide reliable and timely data and statistics to help countries better understand trade and development trends and design more effective economic, environmental and social policies.

Featured

In focus

Our research and publications provide authoritative and evidence-based analysis on trade and development and policy recommendations to help countries tackle today’s biggest challenges.

Featured

In focus

Our meetings and events convene governments, businesses, civil society organizations, academia and international organizations to discuss and build consensus on the most pressing trade and development issues.

Featured

Meeting series in focus

Our technical cooperation helps developing countries better integrate into the global economy by transforming their economies, tackling vulnerabilities, improving competitiveness and empowering people.

Featured programmes

In focus

For registered journalists

Latest

COVID-19 and maritime transport: Impact and responses

Publication