Our global freight forwarding network keeps our customers freight moving across the world.

The ETS question: did carriers redesign Asia-Europe services to avoid carbon tax?

Would a carrier really design its Asia-Europe network around shaving marginal ETS dollars, which it can recoup through surcharges anyway? In short, carriers did redesign for the ETS - though not around the ETS alone. Carriers have redesigned Asia-Europe loops to cut their exposure, and they were right to. But the money is not marginal, a surcharge does not make it someone else's problem, and carbon was never the first reason to call Britain first. Those ports suit the ships; the EU Emissions Trading System made a good choice better. A few months ago, the EU ETS Observatory published a report stating that UK volume growth was a direct result of shippers seeking to minimise the EU-ETS charges - bullocks, if you ask me. Container Trade Statistics (CTS), which counts laden boxes by origin and destination, has UK trade up 3% in 2025, against 5% for North Europe as a whole: the Netherlands grew 6%, France 5%, Poland 18%. Britain grew, but slower than its neighbours. For a carrier to reduce its exposure is not just an operational saving, it is a commercial competitive advantage: the less your "Carbon surcharge" is, the more attractive your all-in freight charge - you certainly don't want to be the most expensive in the market. How a first call is chosen A rotation is built from constraints before costs: transit time; maximum draught and air draught; the number of cranes and how far and high they reach; the volume each port generates; rail and road links inland; and berth windows that fit the schedule. Only then does the voyage costing run; fuel, port charges, charter hire and, since 2024, carbon. Together they make up the unit cost. The first call in North Europe is the most demanding, because the ship arrives from Asia at its deepest draught. Few terminals take a 24,000 teu vessel at full scantling draught without restriction: Rotterdam, Felixstowe, and London Gateway can. Antwerp or Southampton take the same ships, but with draught limits. Wilhelmshaven has the water, but calling there first adds transit time to every port after it. Put Felixstowe or London Gateway first and nothing is lost; the ship has the water, UK importers get the fastest transit, and almost no nautical deviation means the next port is served swiftly thereafter. Taking the Asia leg out of the ETS as well is a win-win, and carriers took it deliberately. The test to come Sea-Intelligence Consulting found the 2026 networks cut ETS-chargeable distance by another 11%. This is simply optimisation, and cost nothing operationally. The evolution of Gemini's AE3 shows this - Algeciras out at both ends, London Gateway first, and Southampton last - presented by Hapag-Lloyd as 'enhanced Baltic coverage' and better for UK exports. Both are true. Brussels now proposes that container ports with deepsea infrastructure, within 150 nautical miles of the EU, no longer count as a break in the voyage. Felixstowe, London Gateway, and Southampton would qualify. Carriers would pay more, but it is doubtul the rotations would change: the ships still need the water, and Rotterdam still has no spare berths. That makes the listing a useful experiment. If Britain mostly stays first, once the carbon reward has gone, the leakage thesis will be buried once and for all. A tax that barely decarbonises Step back, and the UK first-call says something less comfortable about the ETS itself. In shipping, its effectiveness has been limited, for at least two reasons. The first is above - carriers optimised their networks within the rules, as they were entitled to, and importers were spared hundreds of millions of euros a year: the Observatory puts the allowances not collected at the three UK ports alone at about €316m. But the deeper cost is not the revenue. A UK first-call does not change a ship's emissions: same ship, same miles. It removes the carbon price from the Asia leg, the longest of the voyage, and with it any ETS reason to slow down or burn a bio-blend there. The price signal, which is the point of the scheme, stops at the Channel. The second is where the money goes. Shipping now pays for all its in-scope emissions, roughly 90m tonnes, about €7bn a year at €80. Since 2023, member states have been asked to spend all ETS revenue on climate and energy, and in 2024 they reported 80%. But climate is not shipping. The commission's carbon market report found about 5% of national ETS revenue went to industrial decarbonisation, and only France and Estonia ringfence a share for shipping. The Innovation Fund holds 20m allowances for maritime projects over 2024-2030, about €1.6bn in all, against a bill of €7bn a year. In other words, the industry pays for a transition it barely gets to finance. Brussels has noticed. Its July proposal would create a reserve of up to 110m allowances from 2028 to 2040, covering 55%-90% of the price gap for sustainable fuels and zero-emission propulsion. Per tonne of green fuel, that is generous. In total it is about €0.7bn a year, a tenth of what shipping pays, and if claims exceed it, every claim is cut. FuelEU Maritime shows the alternative. Its compliance cost stays inside the industry: a ship that over-complies pools its surplus with one that falls short, and the money moves from one shipowner to another that has invested in cleaner fuel. The ETS takes the same industry's money to national treasuries and asks it to decarbonise anyway. Carriers do not design networks around the ETS. They design them around ships, water and berths, then cut the carbon bill wherever the network allows, and compete on the surcharge that results. A scheme that taxes legs rather than trades, and spends the proceeds elsewhere, invited exactly that. If Brussels wants carbon cut, rather than collected, the next revision should worry less about Felixstowe and way more about where the money goes.

New mining operations unearth opportunities for logistics in Africa

Mining developments in sub-Saharan Africa are boosting the continent's infrastructure, which supply chain operators have been crying out for, but significant gaps remain. Data from the OECD shows more than $155bn will be required for upgrades in port, rail, and road infrastructure over the next decade if the sub-Sahara region "is to meet its potential", but with multiple projects already under way, there are positive signs. DHL Express Sub-Saharan Africa CEO Hennie Heymans told The Loadstar: "We've seen enormous improvement. If you go to Kenya, there's an incredibly smooth new highway, which is partly what's driving the growth in that economy. "If you look at Ethiopia, it is building €15bn airport in Addis Ababa. Rwanda, one of the smallest countries, is building a €4bn airport. If you talk about Nigeria, you talk about Lagos and Abuja. We see fantastic improvements in infrastructure." And this investment is having real world logistics implications, with journeys between Nairobi and Addis Ababa, that previously took upwards of a week, down to 24 hours; while an eight-lane highway has dropped domestic journeys from four hours to mere minutes. Much of the spur behind this has been new mining operations, necessitating the development of roads, port improvements, and services to support them. Also, forwarders in the region believe the arrival of mining presents opportunities for developing trade in the region, with the growth of secondary cities around the sites set to lead to commercial centres and provoke new demand for logistics. Mr Heymans is not naïve over the changes still needed, noting that "there is still an infrastructural deficit", but he said it would be remiss not to recognise the level of improvement that has taken place over the past decade.

DSV air volumes hit by weak Europe and reduced Asia-Europe e-commerce

DSV's airfreight business faced third quarter challenges including weak activity in Europe and reduced Asia Pacific-Europe e-commerce demand. Airfreight volumes fell by 3% to 560,890 tonnes in the third quarter compared to the third quarter of 2025. Overall, volumes grew 15% year on year in the first nine months of 2026. As well as reduced e-commerce shipment volumes on the Asia Pacific-Europe trade lane and Europe-APAC volumes that were below expected levels, the Denmark-headquartered freight forwarder said its air volumes were also negatively impacted by yield management initiatives and shippers shifting cargo from air to sea transport. Meanwhile, DSV pointed out that the Middle East conflict continued to disrupt global airfreight networks, leading to higher costs and volatility, flight rerouting and reduced effective capacity. Although technology, including cloud, demand in in APAC and North America helped lift volumes. "Despite a positive volume trend during the quarter, the decline was larger than expected. Volumes were impacted by yield-management initiatives, conversion from air freight to sea freight, lower-than expected activity in Europe and reduced e-commerce volumes on the APAC-Europe trade lane. "This was partially offset by growth within Technology business in APAC and North America. Middle East-related trade lanes remained weak due to the ongoing conflict in the region." Despite the drop in volumes, airfreight revenue for the quarter was up 16.6% to Dkr24.6bn and air gross profit improved 4.3% to Dkr5bn. DSV commented that average gross profit yields increased "8% YoY in constant currencies". Revenue for the air and sea division was Dkr45.5bn, up by 15.9% in constant currencies terms. This was "mainly driven by increased freight rates and surcharge recovery, especially in air freight", said DSV. Meanwhile, gross profit was Dkr9.2bn. This was an increase of 0.2% year on year, dragged down by the performance of the sea business, where gross profit was down 4.2% "Gross profit was affected by negative volume growth in certain European markets, as well as the transfers of certain services to Global Products," said DSV. "Adjusted for these transfers, gross profit increased 2.8% YoY." It further stated: "In constant currencies, the gross profit was on level with last year. Higher average gross profit yields for air freight and integration synergies were offset by lower freight volumes across both air and sea freight." Across the whole business DSV reported revenue of Dkr80.6bn, up 12% year on year. DSV reported gross profit of Dkr20.3bn, an increase of 2.3% compared to the same period last year. Jens Lund, DSV Group chief executive, said: "We delivered earnings growth in a volatile market, driven by strong results in Air & Sea and Contract Logistics. "Road was affected by integration-related operational issues, but service levels recovered by quarter-end, allowing us to shift our focus to productivity, commercial initiatives and organic growth. "We remain focused on completing the Schenker integration, realising synergies and advancing our 2030 ambitions through investments in AI, technology and network optimisation." Schenker integration The integration of Schenker has largely continued as planned, said DSV. At the end of the third quarter, almost all of the countries with operations "have either completed integration or are in the process of integrating". However, there are a small number of countries where integration is expected to start during the fourth quarter. The Road division in particular has seen operational and commercial challenges in certain European markets following the integration. "Annual synergies are still expected to be at the level of DKK 9 billion, partly offset by inflationary pressure and costs related to increased activity in Contract Logistics," said DSV. "The remaining synergies related to Road and certain Group functions are expected to be delayed into 2027 due to the operational issues in Road."