In brief
French carrier CMA CGM announced an immediate war‑risk surcharge on Black Sea routes, citing worsening security conditions and recent drone attacks. The fee, applicable to ports such as Constanta, Poti, Varna, Burgas, will also extend to shipments to the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and Latin American destinations in 2026. The move follows the Black Sea’s addition to the Joint War Committee’s war‑risk list in September, raising concerns over operational costs for global trade.
BMA CGM has lifted new fees to cover the risks of shipping through the Black Sea in light of rising tensions and drone incidents.
On Monday, the French carrier announced a war‑risk surcharge of USD 35 for a twenty‑foot container (TEU) and USD 70 for a forty‑foot container. The fee covers voyages to the region’s major Romanian and Bulgarian ports—Constanta, Poti, Varna and Burgas—and will also apply from 1 December 2026 to shipments destined for the United States, Australia, New Zealand and countries across Latin America, BTA reports.
The company stated that the measure responds to “the deterioration of the operational situation in the Black Sea over the past months.” BTA notes that the maritime area was added to the Joint War Committee’s list of war‑risk zones on 16 September, triggering the higher cost envelope for international shipping. The change comes after a series of drone attacks on merchant vessels in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone, starting on 6 October, according to BTA.
For shippers, the new surcharge accrues on top of any existing route‑specific fees. BTA’s source did not elaborate on the interaction between this levy and previous contracts, leaving several operational questions unanswered. Chief among them is whether ports beyond the four listed will also migrate into the higher‑rate regime, or whether the surcharge will remain limited to the designated bulk of Romanian and Bulgarian facilities. Companies will also have to determine whether their existing insurance or risk‑transfer agreements account for the impending cost hike, a point that BTA reports has not yet been clarified.
In the wider context, the Joint War Committee’s war‑risk designation applies to any merchant vessel that transits an area where significant armed conflict or the potential for conflict exists. The list is updated to reflect intelligence and incident reports, BTA explains, and it informs carriers of the need to adjust freight rates to reflect heightened operational expense, loss risk, and insurance premiums. House-keeping on the maritime community indicates that war risk surcharges can double the cost of certain routes, depending on throttle points and the prevalence of hostilities. The Black Sea theater, with issues ranging from Ukrainian separatist activity to commuter drone incursions, is the latest maritime stretch to receive the label.
The economic impact of the new surcharge is still emerging. While the fee may be modest for a volume of shipping through four ports, it signals a broader shift in the way carriers respond to geopolitical risk. Analysts point to past similar decisions—such as the early 2000s surge on routes around the Horn of Africa—when concerns over piracy forced carriers to carry additional security fees. In that environment, the freight industry initially protested higher costs, but the eventual reality of rising insurance costs and heightened crews avoided potential vulnerabilities pushed the new bulk fees into the operating budgets of all but the smallest operators, BTA reports.
Another open question is how cascading regulations from customs and trade authorities will interact with the war‑risk surcharge. Since the fee is a commercial decision by the carrier, it is not a diplomatic instrument and thus not directly tied to any tariff or embargo. Nevertheless, shipments that now pass through vessels carrying a war‑risk fee could trigger scrutiny from regulatory agencies, depending on the commodity or destination. For instance, goods destined for the United States are subject to stringent export controls, BTA highlights, and carriers may need to assess whether the surcharge leads to potential customs assessments for declaring additional protective fee amounts. No statement from U.S. customs officials is available at the moment.
In practice, shippers will need to review the fee structure of all providers, verify the coverage of this surcharge within the carrier’s goods‑in‑freight (GIFT) contract, and recalibrate booking costs accordingly. Multiple carriers serve the same ports, and their risk‑pricing differs. Banana‑shipping lines have recently negotiated a shared risk contingency fund, a development BTA indicates may be leveraged in the future to incorporate a more flexible, pooled approach to war‑risk surcharges, but it remains unclear if such a facility could apply to the Black Sea corridor. The industry is watching closely how the fee will evolve and whether other carriers will match the charge as a default for the region.
At present, BTA indicates that CMA CGM’s announcement is the only public move to impose a war‑risk surcharge for Black Sea routes. Shippers are advised to keep an eye on future updates from the carrier as well as new assessments from the Joint War Committee’s list to gauge whether additional ports will be added to the surcharge. Until the carrier declares further changes, exports to the listed ports will carry a fixed USD 35 or USD 70 per container, but how the fee will affect the overall cost of goods remains a question for industry analysts and the shippers who rely on CMA CGM’s routes.
