Will port fee proposals reshape US dry bulk imports and export trades?

- China-operated vessels make up a minority of port calls but penalties on country of build and corporate affiliation could see costs rise and fleet distribution shift

Cargo movements into and out of the United States could be re-shaped by proposals to levy fees on port calls by Chinese built or operated vessels, as well as potential sanctions based on whether the operator controls ships built in China or has tonnage on order there.

In its Q1 2025 Dry Bulk Market Report, MSI notes that as currently envisaged, the rules provide little clarity but could have a significant potential impact on North American dry bulk trades. The proposals also include plans to mandate the use of US-flagged and US-built vessels for a certain percentage of US exports.

Under the proposals, a vessel under the control of a Chinese operator could attract an indicative fee of $1m per call to a US port. In addition to this, if the vessel were constructed in China then an additional fee of $1.5m could be imposed, plus an extra $1m if the operator has other vessels under its control that were built (or will be built) in China – a total of $3.5m per call.

Less than 6% of dry bulk vessels calling at US ports in 2024 were operated by Chinese companies, with a significant share being operated by companies based in Greece (17%), US (14%) or Japan (13%).

However, since a large majority of dry bulk ships have been (or are being built) in China, this new policy could potentially have a significant impact on how dry bulk operators serve dry bulk trade into and out of the US.

US port calls in 2024 by the origin of build show that 38% of all calls were by vessels built in China. However, this does not mean that the remaining vessels would escape fees. MSI analysis shows that 20% of 2024 calls were by operators that had vessels on order in China. But most importantly, 70% of the calls in 2024 were by operators that had at least one Chinese-built vessel in their fleet.

Even a $1m fee per call would be highly disruptive in the context of freight costs, particularly for smaller vessels – for example a 28,000t stem of wood pellets would cost an additional $35/tonne. This would practically double the freight cost from the US to Europe, although it corresponds to a slightly less dramatic impact on the CFR import commodity cost at around $300/tonne.

“This does not signify a downside risk to dry bulk demand, but more likely a risk that US exports will become less competitive and/or the global fleet distribution will shift in response. In practice, both may be the case,” said Will Fray, Director, Maritime Strategies International. “One fallout could be a larger share of Japanese bulker owners undertaking US freight requirements, for example, but since the fleet and orderbook are so heavily China-dominant, this policy may result in higher freight costs for US dry bulk trips.”

■ Contact: Maritime Strategies International(MSI) www.msiltd.com