The tensions in the Middle East continue, and the risk premium in the global shipping market has not faded. However, an easily overlooked signal is emerging: surcharge adjustments on African routes are showing clear structural divergence. During the same period, different shipping lines, different fee items, and different route directions may see completely opposite adjustments. For freight forwarders and exporters, simply summarizing the situation as "African freight rates have gone up" is no longer sufficient to support accurate quotations and cost judgments.
I. Surcharge Adjustments Are Not "One-Sided"
Recent announcements from shipping lines release a mixed signal. On one hand, Maersk, due to rising fuel costs caused by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, increased its Emergency Fuel Surcharge (EFS) for all export pickup and import delivery services to 20% starting October 12. On the other hand, regarding the Emergency Contingency Surcharge (ECS) for some Middle East to West Africa routes, market information indicates that fees for certain container types have been reduced. Meanwhile, Hapag-Lloyd announced that starting October 25, the Peak Season Surcharge (PSS) from Asia and Oceania to Northwest African destinations will be adjusted to $400 per TEU, and to Southwest Africa (Angola, Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, Namibia, etc.) to $800 per TEU, applicable to all container types.
The common message from these announcements is that cost changes on African routes must be specific to the origin, destination port, container type, fee item, and effective date, and cannot be covered by a broad "rise" or "fall." Surcharge announcements for container routes cannot be directly applied to quotations for bulk carriers or breakbulk routes.
II. West Africa: Congestion Is Becoming a Harder Cost Than Freight Rates
The actual operational pressure at some West African ports is pushing "congestion costs" to the forefront. As of early October, berthing delays at Conakry, Guinea, reached 16 to 20 days; delays at Freetown, Sierra Leone, and Monrovia, Liberia, exceeded 10 days and 8 to 10 days, respectively; and waiting times at Abidjan peaked at around 12 days. The reefer yard utilization at Tema Port, Ghana, exceeded 100%, with vessel delays of about 4 to 6 days. Cargo volumes are approaching last year's full-year levels, but yards, equipment, and inland transport have failed to expand in sync, which is the main cause of worsening congestion.
Congestion directly translates into surcharges. CMA CGM is imposing a congestion surcharge of $400 per TEU on reefer cargo bound for Tema Port, and Hapag-Lloyd is charging $250 per TEU for related reefer cargo. For West African business, if quotations only calculate ocean freight and regular surcharges while ignoring destination port congestion surcharges and the capital occupation caused by schedule delays, the cost model is incomplete.
III. East Africa: Peak Season Surcharges Have Clearly Landed
The peak season surcharge adjustments for East African routes have a clear rate structure. CMA CGM, effective October 15, is uniformly imposing a $800 per TEU peak season surcharge on cargo from China to Mombasa, Kenya; for Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the rate is $550 per TEU from South China origins, and $600 per TEU from North and Central China origins. This means that for the same destination port, the surcharge differences between different origin regions are substantial, and quotations must be calculated according to the rate corresponding to the actual port of origin.
Another variable for East Africa comes from route selection. As of mid-October, about 63% of Asia-Europe route capacity has returned to the Red Sea and Suez Canal routes, with some vessels adopting a mixed model of westbound via Suez and return via the Cape of Good Hope. This pattern of coexisting resumption and diversion will change the calling rhythm and schedule stability at East African ports. Beyond surcharges, time costs also need to be factored in.
IV. South Africa: Surcharge Jumps Combined with Port Bottlenecks
South Africa is currently one of the segments with the most drastic cost fluctuations on African routes. CMA CGM has significantly increased its peak season surcharge for China to South Africa routes, with the increase for Durban reaching $1,050 to $1,150 per TEU, representing a jump compared to previous levels. The background to this adjustment is the superposition of the year-end South African consumer stocking peak and the ongoing operational bottlenecks at Durban Port: congestion and vessel delays at Durban's gateway terminals continue to disrupt the supply chain. Although yard occupancy fluctuates, efficiency issues at berths and landside operations have not been fundamentally alleviated.
For categories such as furniture, electromechanical products, and general merchandise exported to South Africa, the jump in surcharges will directly compress already limited order profits. Enterprises that have already signed fixed-price contracts need to renegotiate cost-sharing mechanisms with buyers. Freight forwarders need to promptly update quotation templates, clearly separate base freight from surcharges, and specify effective dates to reduce subsequent reconciliation disputes.
V. Construction Machinery and Project Cargo: Transport Mode Determines Cost Logic
Demand for Chinese construction machinery in the African market is still being rapidly released. From January to February 2026, China's construction machinery exports to Africa surged by 77%. The logistics costs for such cargo cannot be conflated with container routes.
RoRo vessels are suitable for wheeled and tracked equipment, offering fast loading and low cargo damage, but RoRo capacity on African routes has long been tight, and the scarcity of schedules will push up actual transaction costs. Breakbulk and deck cargo transport have cost-effectiveness advantages on some African routes, but the billing logic is based on cargo dimensions, weight, loading/discharging requirements, and port conditions, which is completely different from the TEU pricing system for containers. Directly applying container route surcharges to construction machinery quotations is a common source of cost misjudgment in practice.
VI. From "Guessing Trends" to "Verifying Fees and Locking Dates"
The current cost environment for African routes is not suitable for replacing per-shipment calculations with trend judgments. The more pragmatic approach involves three actions:
Verify fees shipment by shipment. At the quotation stage, confirm ocean freight, various surcharges, destination port congestion fees, and local charges, and clarify the applicable conditions and validity period of each fee. For congested West African ports, a buffer of more than 10 days should be reserved for reefer containers and time-sensitive cargo.
Lock in effective dates. The effective date of shipping line surcharges is usually based on the loading date. Orders with confirmed bookings and released space may have a window to apply the old rates. Freight forwarders should sync with the shipping line's detailed rules, clarify the cutoff dates, and avoid extra costs caused by timing differences.
Distnguish transport modes and cargo types. The cost structures of container, RoRo, and bulk cargo are independent. When inquiring about construction machinery and project cargo, one should directly enter the corresponding transport mode quotation system, rather than making simple additions or subtractions based on container rates.
The Middle East situation remains an important exogenous variable for African route costs, but the way it transmits to specific routes is not uniform. For freight forwarders and exporters, the scarcer capability right now is not predicting the next round of rises or falls, but clearly mapping out the fee composition, schedule conditions, and transport modes for each shipment—in a divergent market, precise documentation and terms management protect profits better than macro-level judgments.