How have shipping patterns and transshipment hotspots shifted since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020 shipping flows have shifted from pandemic-era bottlenecks toward route diversification, regional hub growth and increased transshipment activity in Southeast Asia and Caribbean/Atlantic hubs; ports such as Cartagena, Freeport and Kingston showed heavy congestion late‑2024, while ASEAN countries (Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand) became key transshipment nodes as firms rerouted around tariffs and risks [1] [2]. Geopolitical shocks — Red Sea/Suez diversions from October 2023 and new tariff enforcement since 2024–25 — have pushed carriers to longer routings, front‑loading and use of alternative ports, amplifying transshipment and congestion dynamics industrywide [3] [4] [1].
1. Pandemic hangover to diversification: routes rebalanced and front‑loading returned
After the extreme volatility of 2020–22 — when indices like the Shanghai Containerised Freight Index spiked — shippers and carriers began to de‑risk by diversifying origins, front‑loading shipments and seeking alternative ports; that trend continued into 2024–25 with non‑China origins supplying roughly 20% more volume year‑on‑year in some industry commentary, tightening equipment at emerging hubs [5] [6]. Analysts report that front‑loading to avoid tariffs and expected disruptions has pushed volumes into different ports and service strings, changing peak seasonal patterns and creating recurring congestion at secondary gateways [4] [3].
2. Geopolitics forced new routings and longer sailings
The October 2023 diversions around the Red Sea and Suez Canal and other geopolitical risks raised schedule unreliability and capacity constraints; carriers responded with longer routings and blank sailings, increasing reliance on transshipment hubs and onshore storage to smooth flows [3]. UNCTAD and industry sources also note fleet growth and regulatory pressures that interact with these geopolitical shocks to reshape where ships call and where cargo is consolidated [7].
3. Transshipment hotspots shifted toward Southeast Asia and specific Atlantic hubs
Companies seeking to preserve market access and avoid direct exposure to tariffs and supply‑chain risk increased use of intermediary economies. ASEAN countries—Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand—are repeatedly cited as key nodes for rerouted Chinese exports, while Caribbean/Atlantic hubs such as Cartagena, Freeport and Kingston recorded acute congestion in late‑2024, with queue depths and schedule reliability deteriorating [2] [1]. Those shifts reflect both commercial transshipment (legitimate relay) and increased attention to re‑routing that can mask origin for tariff reasons [2] [8].
4. Policy backlash is reshaping where transshipment is viable
From 2024 into 2025 the policy environment tightened: the U.S. and other actors moved to curb tariff circumvention and scrutinize transshipment, prompting companies and countries to alter practices. Reporting shows the U.S. took steps to target transshipment in trade deals and enforcement, and commentators warned that new penalties would change incentives for rerouting via third countries [9] [10]. As enforcement grows, some historical hubs risk losing flows unless they can demonstrate genuine value‑added or tighter origin verification (p2_s10; [12] — available sources do not mention the 2025 ASEAN framework’s detailed implementation specifics).
5. Congestion concentrated at transshipment‑dependent ports, stressing capacity
Detailed industry reporting in late‑2024 documented major queuing at transshipment hubs: Cartagena had 90+ ships in port/anchorage mid‑December 2024; Freeport saw 20+ ships in queue; Kingston’s volumes were roughly 50% above 2020 levels with severely degraded schedule performance [1]. These bottlenecks illustrate how reconfigured strings and diverted voyages transfer delay risk to intermediary ports that lack spare capacity.
6. Technology and compliance are altering operational choices
Digital tools, AI and better data‑sharing have helped shippers identify alternative routings and hedges; meanwhile, stricter documentation and certificate regimes (for example, centralized Certificates of Origin in some countries) are being used as defensive measures to demonstrate compliance and retain access to markets [11] [9]. That dynamic accelerates the move from opportunistic rerouting toward more formalized, traceable transshipment when used.
7. Competing perspectives and open questions
Industry vendors and trade commentators stress opportunity and resilience gained from diversification [5] [11]. Regulators and some trade analysts warn that transshipment can mask tariff avoidance and is drawing tougher enforcement [10] [9]. Available sources do not mention comprehensive, global quantitative maps showing net TEU shifts by hub since 2020; therefore the exact magnitude of flow reallocation across all corridors is not specified in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this analysis draws only on the supplied reporting and industry pieces, which mix data, commentary and commercial perspective; where precise global TEU reallocation figures or exhaustive port‑by‑port time series are absent in those sources, I note that explicitly (not found in current reporting).