25 June 2026
The new reality of global shipping
Four risks you can't ignore
How geopolitics, climate disruption and digital risks are transforming the marine sector and what it means for the future of supply chains.
For many decades, the world grew accustomed to an international order in which trade and economic cooperation were easier, and the oceans were mostly safe to circumnavigate. This period is now behind us as we enter a more fragmented, multi-polar era.
Geopolitics and tariff uncertainty are among several forces converging on the marine sector. Climate disruption, the transition to cleaner fuels and rapid digitisation of logistics are each bringing new risks and opportunities.
Understanding the dominant forces shaping global marine cargo risk in 2026 is key to building more robust logistics networks and limiting the operational and financial fallout of stressed supply chains.
“Clients are increasingly forced to weigh how to keep goods moving without overexposing themselves to vulnerable areas,” says Alec Russell, Managing Director of Marine Cargo at Gallagher Specialty. “But with the way the world is, you can’t avoid some regions entirely.”
Key insights
- Why the shipping industry is on the frontline of a new world order as nations reassert competing economic, territorial and security priorities.
- Businesses are de-risking supply chains and routing goods through countries with more favourable tariff regimes.
- Climate disruption compounds every other risk, restricting critical shipping lanes and straining port infrastructure not built for the 21st-century climate.
- Technology is transforming shipping but also introducing new vulnerabilities as its digital footprint grows.
1 - Geopolitical risk and the fragmentation of global trade
Geopolitical instability and fragmentation are accelerating as nations reassert competing economic, territorial and security priorities.
“Globalisation is giving way to a multipolar world, and with it, the long, intricate supply chains we’ve relied on are becoming less viable - geopolitical risk is no longer external, it’s embedded in how businesses operate day to day,” explains Adam Carrier, Head of Consulting at AnotherDay, a Gallagher business.
For shipping, the US-Iran conflict is unfolding just as the prior one seemed to be easing. In recent years, Houthi attacks on vessels entering the Red Sea forced major container lines to route around the Cape of Good Hope, adding 10–14 days to transit times, increasing fuel burn, and driving up insurance costs.
More recently, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the channel linking the Persian Gulf to the rest of the planet, has prompted wildly fluctuating prices for oil and natural gas. Higher energy prices make fuel more expensive for trucks, tankers and jets, increasing the cost of moving cargo across the board.
Agriculture is also taking a hit, as prices for fertilisers have risen. The Gulf is a dominant source of urea, the leading form of nitrogen fertiliser.
Meanwhile, the Russia–Ukraine conflict continues to constrain agricultural and commodity exports, while safe‑shipping corridors remain fragile. Rising tension around China–Taiwan poses the most significant forward‑looking risk to the manufacturing backbone of global supply chains.
Diversifying risk in the supply chain has become a central resilience strategy for many businesses, with implications for marine transportation. “Businesses can no longer treat geopolitics as background noise - it is now a direct, operational risk that must be actively managed,” says Carrier.
Strategies such as onshoring may de-risk one part of the supply chain while introducing risk in another part. Onshoring may bring heightened exposure to cargo theft, for instance, or disruptions relating to ageing infrastructure. Inland trade routes may be just as unpredictable and prone to bottlenecks as marine routes.
2 - Tariff-driven stockpiling and surging accumulation risk
Tariffs are further influencing global supply chains. The latest US tariff packages, combined with the Maritime Action Plan launched in February (which may introduce charges for goods imported on foreign‑built vessels), represent a profound new layer of cost and volatility for global shippers.
Despite the US Supreme Court’s ruling in February, current signals predict that tariffs will remain part of global trade for some time to come. In response, governments have moved to reach new trade agreements with major partners to secure goods and minerals.
Where they can, businesses are de-risking supply chains and routing goods through countries with more favourable tariff regimes, which can lead to multi‑leg journeys. Manufacturers are exploring domestic production of strategic materials and accelerating import cycles ahead of tariff deadlines.
According to Gallagher’s global supply chain risk research, nine out of ten businesses are either already stockpiling or planning to do so in response to tariff and trade uncertainty. This means the demand for warehouses and storage solutions has grown.
Stockpiling can result in more significant claims when a loss occurs. Higher concentrations of goods in warehouses near ports, logistics hubs and industrial estates can materially increase the severity of claims in the event of floods, fires or other catastrophic events.
"Effectively, you can de-risk in one place and pass that on to another. If a large windstorm comes through, you could get a bigger loss because you have a greater accumulation of values in single locations,” says Alec Russell.
Goods sitting idle for long periods also create attractive targets for theft, especially in areas with limited security infrastructure. Amid a rise in cargo crime, the stockpiling of goods is creating larger and more attractive targets for organised criminal gangs. These actors are increasingly using technology and forged documentation to intercept and steal goods.
3 - Climate and sustainability risks: A structural threat to maritime stability
In a world where weather extremes are becoming more present, droughts, floods and windstorms are increasingly disrupting shipping and port operations worldwide. In 2025, insured natural catastrophe losses surpassed USD100 billion for the sixth consecutive year.
The Panama Canal crisis - driven by severe drought in 2023 and 2024 - shows how quickly climate conditions can constrain trade. The drought, exacerbated by the El Niño phase of the ENSO cycle, cut daily ship crossings from 38 to an average of 22. As of mid-June 2026, an El Niño had developed, with the potential to intensify into a "Super El Niño" during the 2026/2027 winter. Gallagher Re climate scientist Steve Bowen said: “We’ve officially transitioned into El Niño as of mid-June, and the latest ENSO forecast model consensus points to further strengthening into late 2026. There is growing expectation that this could be one of the stronger El Niño events we’ve seen in decades, if not longer.”
According to research from the University of Oxford, most of the world’s 1,400 major ports were not designed with climate change in mind. The exposure is significant: more than 70% of global terminals lie in areas exposed to sea‑level rise or severe weather and port downtime puts an estimated USD67 billion of trade at risk annually.
“A vast number of ports around the world find themselves struggling with ageing infrastructure which is both more susceptible to changing environmental trends as well as evolving cargo demands,” says James Richardson, Managing Director, Marine at Gallagher Specialty. “This infrastructure is both highly vulnerable and costly to retrofit.”
Lack of consensus on future fuels hinders infrastructure development
In April 2025, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) released its framework to achieve net zero by 2050. It requires cargo ships weighing 5,000 tons or more to pay a fee if their CO2 emissions exceed a threshold level, and in effect, rewards vessels that use cleaner fuels. However, efforts by the IMO to fully ratify its Net Zero Framework earlier this year were thwarted, leaving the timetable for implementation in doubt.
While major shipowners have already placed orders for vessels which can operate on alternative fuels such as ammonia and hydrogen, most orders have been for hybrid vessels which can also operate on traditional bunker fuels.
The move towards a sustainable fuel future is dependent on multi-billion-dollar investments by shipowners and port operators to create the sustainable fuel infrastructure needed to service the world fleet in the future. However, a lack of regulatory guidance is hindering progress.
With the shipping industry yet to reach a consensus on the types of sustainable fuels that will drive the fleets of the future, it could create a situation where certain vessels will be restricted to certain ports due to limited access to their chosen fuel systems.
“Port operators are being asked to invest ahead of certainty,” says Richardson. “Until there is greater consensus around future fuels, there is a real risk of fragmented infrastructure, uneven port readiness and assets that may not align with where demand ultimately settles.”
Retreating polar ice could open new global shipping routes. But those opportunities come with significant ethical, geopolitical and environmental implications, and the infrastructure to support regular Arctic shipping doesn't yet exist.
4 - Cargo Crime in a Digitised, High‑Velocity Supply Chain
A more digital and interconnected world has changed the modus operandi of organised cargo crime and corporations increasingly use technology within their supply chains, making them more exposed to digital and technology-enabled cargo crime.
To put the issue in perspective, from 2022–2024, the EMEA Intelligence System of the Transported Asset Protection Association (TAPA) recorded 157,421 incidents of cargo theft across 129 countries. Together, these crimes caused EUR2.7 billion in losses, equal to nearly EUR2.5 million in stolen goods each day.
From a loss perspective, the ability to exploit technology is increasing the severity of claims. A fraud or payment diversion event may generate multiple smaller claims, but a compromise of a logistics system - or the manipulation of release and collection processes - can enable large volumes of goods to leave a warehouse or terminal without proper checks.
“If you have a warehouse full of goods and someone has hacked into your system, allowing items to leave the warehouse without proper checks, you could face significant losses,” says Florence Tully, Operations Director, Marine, Gallagher Specialty. “You might think everything was legitimate, only to discover months later that you were hacked.”
Changes in how high-value goods are moved can also amplify losses. For example, the growing use of containerised shipments - including for vehicles - can mean criminals no longer target single units; instead, they seek to reroute or steal an entire container, turning isolated theft into a high-severity event.
How cargo criminals exploit technology
- High-tech cargo theft: criminals breach transportation management systems or communications to intercept and reroute shipments - sometimes without being on-site.
- Double brokering scams: using stolen identities, fictitious carrier entities, and authentic-looking documentation, organised groups bid for loads on digital freight exchanges and impersonate legitimate shippers or hauliers to secure the release of cargo and divert it.
- GPS jammers and tracking disruption: thieves use jamming devices to obstruct tracking systems, making it difficult to locate stolen cargo - even where trackers are fitted.
- Strategic cargo theft (deception-led): criminals exploit load boards and digital tools to trick firms into handing over goods through fraudulent transactions and manipulated delivery instructions.
- Insider collusion: In some cases, criminals collaborate with insiders- sometimes including drivers - who provide route, schedule, and security details that increase the probability of a successful theft.
The common thread is speed and realism: criminals are leveraging digital systems to make fraudulent movements appear routine, exploiting the high-velocity nature of modern logistics and the sheer number of handoffs across outsourced supply chains.
Alec Russell warns that the US freight brokerage model - fast‑moving, relationship-light, and digitally mediated - has become a hotspot for cyber-enabled cargo theft: “It’s very easy for bad actors to spoof. You can get a bill of lading written up instantly, it looks genuine, and they just hand over the cargo.”
Many corporations are investing heavily in security systems. This includes GPS tracking, IoT sensors, smart locks, telematics and predictive software. These solutions improve resilience, but they also introduce new cyber and data‑integrity vulnerabilities.
Responding to a new era of marine risk
For the marine sector and the global trade networks it supports, today’s operating environment is defined by a more volatile mix of geopolitical instability, tariff uncertainty, climate disruption and digital threats. These pressures do not sit in isolation; they can affect vessels, cargo, ports, warehouses and inland transit networks at the same time, making exposures more interconnected and losses harder to predict.
For businesses moving goods globally, the challenge is no longer simply to maintain flow through the supply chain, but to understand where risk is concentrating and how disruption in one part of the network can quickly cascade elsewhere. Changes in routing, stockpiling, port congestion and growing reliance on digital systems can all alter risk profiles and increase the severity of a claim.
In this environment, resilience depends on stronger visibility across the supply chain, better accumulation management and more proactive decision-making. Organisations that assess concentrations of value, stress-test contingency plans, and work closely with brokers and insurers will be better positioned to reduce volatility and absorb future shocks.
“Supply chains can no longer be managed for efficiency alone. They must also be understood through the lens of resilience, visibility and insurability in a world where disruption is increasingly frequent and interconnected,” says Adam Carrier.
The sole purpose of this article is to provide guidance on the issues covered. This article is not intended to give legal advice, and, accordingly, it should not be relied upon. It should not be regarded as a comprehensive statement of the law and/or market practice in this area. We make no claims as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained herein or in the links which were live at the date of publication. You should not act upon (or should refrain from acting upon) information in this publication without first seeking specific legal and/or specialist advice. Arthur J. Gallagher (UK) Limited accepts no liability for any inaccuracy, omission or mistake in this publication, nor will we be responsible for any loss which may be suffered as a result of any person relying on the information contained herein.
The Walbrook Building 25 Walbrook London, EC4N 8AW
Privacy Policy - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information (U.S. Residents Only)
Arthur J. Gallagher (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered Office: The Walbrook Building, 25 Walbrook, London EC4N 8AW. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 119013.