The war in the Middle East has reopened one of the shipping industry’s most contentious debates: whether emergency fuel surcharges imposed by ocean carriers are a legitimate recovery tool or simply another way to boost revenues during a crisis.
Since the conflict intensified, container lines have introduced emergency fuel surcharges ranging from $30 to $300 per TEU, depending on the trade lane. Carriers argue that the extraordinary spike in fuel prices has forced them to move beyond the normal quarterly bunker adjustment factor (BAF) mechanism, which they say is too slow to reflect the pace of the disruption.
But many cargo owners are unconvinced. For shippers, the concern is not the existence of higher fuel costs, but the risk of being charged twice: once through the emergency surcharge now, and again later when the quarterly BAF formula catches up.
That concern has become more pressing as the usual relationship between bunker prices and BAF calculations has broken down. According to analysis from Vizion, the speed of the conflict’s escalation and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz have fractured the traditional fuel-cost pricing model used in liner shipping.
Industry voices have been blunt. James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum, said shipping lines too often appear to turn crises into opportunities for financial gain, warning that this form of “double-dipping” further damages the credibility of surcharge practices.
Others in the shipper community share that view. Antonios Rigalos, managing partner of shipper network ShiftX, said emergency bunker adjustment factors may have been understandable during the current contract period ending March 26, but not beyond that point. In his view, the Q3 BAF review, which will reflect March, April and May fuel costs, should absorb the increase. Charging both an emergency surcharge and a revised BAF would amount to unfair double billing, he argued.
Shippers negotiating freight contracts are already pushing back. One Asia-Europe shipper based in Hong Kong said its contracts are linked to the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI), which already incorporates both BAF and EBAF elements. From that perspective, any additional emergency charge is being treated as unacceptable.
Meanwhile, carriers continue to act. CMA CGM this week raised its emergency fuel surcharge from $150 to $265 per TEU on long-haul trade lanes after first introducing it on March 16. OOCL said it would introduce a temporary emergency bunker surcharge from March 23, citing fuel availability pressures that fall outside existing mechanisms. Cosco Shipping has rolled out emergency bunker surcharges on trades involving Europe, South America and Africa. MSC introduced a temporary emergency bunker surcharge on March 16, with levels varying between $30 and $300 per TEU. Maersk, for its part, announced on March 10 a $200 per TEU emergency bunker surcharge on all long-haul routes.
Maersk said the fee was needed to secure fuel access and manage fuel mix issues beyond what is covered under its fossil fuel fee (FFF). Chief Commercial Officer Karsten Kildahl explained that the situation had become so severe that the carrier was loading fuel in the US and Europe and transferring it to ships in Asia as supplies at major bunkering hubs tightened.
Most carriers say these emergency surcharges will be reviewed every two weeks. Yet with the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed to commercial shipping—and with roughly 20% of global oil and LNG supplies normally passing through the waterway each day—few in the market expect the surcharges to disappear soon.
For shippers, the timing is another problem. Hookham said the speed with which the new charges were introduced has made it almost impossible for importers and exporters to pass those costs on to their own customers or suppliers. For smaller businesses especially, the sudden cash-flow shock could be severe, particularly when cargo is delayed or not delivered at all.
He also pointed to the lack of notice. In the United States, the Federal Maritime Commission requires a 30-day notice period before surcharges can take effect on US services, a rule Hookham says gets the balance right. He believes the current wave of emergency fees will only increase calls for similar protections worldwide.
Vizion’s review underscores how unusual this market shock has been. Average very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) prices stood at $535 per metric ton in 2025, down 14.4% year over year and the lowest level since 2020. During that period, BAF accounted for only 10% to 20% of total freight costs. But after US and Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, fuel prices jumped 73%, reaching $939 per metric ton in less than two weeks. Carriers reacted almost immediately with emergency surcharges of $60 to $190 per TEU, far faster than the traditional quarterly BAF cycle would allow.
Vizion says that response reveals a deeper divide in the market. Some carriers initially tried to preserve long-term customer relationships by absorbing volatility, while others moved quickly to transfer costs and defend margins. Maersk was initially seen as part of the first camp before later introducing its own emergency surcharge, while MSC and CMA CGM adopted a faster pass-through strategy.
For now, shippers with fixed contract rates may enjoy temporary protection. But Vizion warns that over the next three to six months, aggressive Q2 BAF corrections are likely as carriers seek to recover the remaining fuel-cost gap.
That is exactly why many shippers are uneasy. Chantal McRoberts, director and head of advisory at Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, said companies understand that higher bunker costs will normally feed into Q3 pricing. The issue is whether the emergency fees being imposed now are truly temporary cost-recovery tools—or whether they risk becoming an additional revenue line once the standard BAF mechanism also rises.
For many cargo owners operating under transparent, formula-based bunker pricing agreements, that concern is enough to trigger resistance.
