ONE Ship Hits Docked Maersk Ship Causing Boxes to Fall
03.03.2025
An NYK-owned containership operating for Ocean Network Express (ONE) stuck a Maersk ship as it was maneuvering into Hong Kong on Friday evening, February 28. The allision dislodged three containers from the docked Maersk vessel causing them to fall into Hong Kong harbor but the authorities report there were no injuries.ONE Columba (138,611 dwt) was arriving at Hong Kong’s Kwai Chung Container Terminal from China’s Shenzhen port. In the video of the incident, the bow anchor is down with the chain visible and tugs assisting the Japan-registered vessel. Built in 2018, the ship is (364 meters) in length with a capacity of 14,000 TEU. The vessel appears to overshot and its bow hits amidship the Maersk containership which is docked at a 90-degree angle to the arriving ONE vessel.As the ONE vessel reverses, container stacks on the deck of the Maersk vessel can be seen to teeter and three boxes fall from the deck into Hong Kong harbor. It is unclear if they were empties. The Hong Kong Marine Department reported on Saturday the boxes had been retrieved from the harbor.Clifford Maersk (110,387 dwt) was on dock for container operations after having arrived from South America earlier in the week. Built in 1999, the vessel is registered in Denmark with a capacity of 9,640 TEU. It is 1,138 feet (347 meters) in length. Officials from the Marine Department inspected both vessels and reported minor damage terming it a “minor collision.” There was no pollution and no injuries. One media report is saying the ONE vessel sustained a 2-meter by 2-meter (6.5-foot by 6.5-foot) gash above the waterline on its bow.AIS data shows ONE Columba departed Hong Kong Saturday evening bound for Ningbo, China. The Maersk vessel departed on Sunday bound for Shanghai.
Ocean Alliance rolls out new service network
13.01.2025
Ocean Alliance of CMA CGM, COSCO, Evergreen and OOCL has announced the latest product line-up for 2025.
As the initial cooperation period nears its end, all partners have agreed to extend their collaboration for at least an additional five years, until 2032. This decision will make Ocean Alliance the only container shipping grouping remaining the same after February 2025, when the new structure of the alliances will take effect.
CMA CGM Inaugurates New Terminal at Khalifa
23.12.2024
CMA Terminals has inaugurated a container terminal in Khalifa Port, furthering the UAE’s port expansion plan. The $845 million container terminal is managed as a joint venture between the CMA CGM Group’s subsidiary CMA Terminals (70 percent) and Abu Dhabi Ports (30 percent). The facility adds a capacity of 1.8 million TEU to Khalifa Port.
In 2022, the UAE launched the Khalifa Port expansion plan as a key national project to drive economic growth. Khalifa Port was opened in 2012 and has since grown into a major logistics hub serving more than 25 container shipping lines, with direct links to more than 70 international destinations.
The addition of the CMA Terminals facility increases Khalifa Port’s annual container capacity by 23 percent to almost 10 million TEU. The port has a goal of reaching a handling capacity of 15 million TEU by 2030.
The terminal is ready for railway connectivity and features shore-power infrastructure for vessels. It includes eight Ship to Shore (STS) cranes and 20 Electric Rubber Tyred Gantry (e-RTG) cranes, boosting the efficiency of Khalifa Port.
“The inauguration of our new container terminal is a major step in the development of Khalifa Port, consolidating Abu Dhabi’s position as a global trade hub. This strategic infrastructure will boost shipping and logistics activities across the region,” said Rodolphe Saadé, CEO of CMA CGM Group.
Meanwhile, CMA CGM and AD Ports signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) aimed at enhancing maritime education and training in the UAE and the Gulf region. The CMA CGM Group will contribute in the placement of Abu Dhabi Maritime Academy cadets onboard its vessels.
In the past three years, CMA CGM has invested heavily in building up its terminal footprint across major ports. Some of the regions that the ocean carrier has been targeting include the Mediterranean and Americas (Port of New York and New Jersey and Brazil’s Port of Santos).
MSC continues container ship order rally with new major order
17.12.2024
The Swiss container shipping giant MSC continues its strong order streak, placing a new massive order for newbuild container ships.
According to Alphaliner, MSC has placed an order for ten vessels, each with a capacity of 24,000 TEUs, at the Chinese shipyard Hengli Heavy Industry. The delivery of the newbuildings is expected to begin in 2028, with the value of the deal estimated at around US$2.35 billion.
This new order further increases MSC’s orderbook, which now surpasses the 2 million TEU mark, reaching 2.13 million TEUs.
Given that Ocean Network Express (ONE), the sixth-largest container line, has a fleet of 1.96 million TEUs, MSC’s orderbook could be considered the “sixth-largest container fleet” in the world.
It is worth noting that in September last year, MSC placed orders for ten dual-fuel LNG-powered container ships, each with a capacity of 21,000 TEUs, at the same shipyard.
What Scuttled the Global Plastics Treaty Talks in Busan?
09.12.2024
Momentum for a global deal to tackle global plastic pollution stalled this month in South Korea, after a small group of oil-producing countries held out against over 100 pushing for an ambitious treaty that restricted production.
As a result, negotiators from 175 countries left Busan without achieving their agreed mandate to draft a treaty by the end of 2024, and the process will be deferred to a new meeting next year.
“I am equal parts disappointed and inspired,” says Sivendra Michael, Fiji’s Permanent Secretary for Environment and Climate Change, and lead negotiator for the Pacific Small Island Developing States. “Disappointed that a small group of countries were able to take the process hostage by what I would call the ‘dark arts’ of multilateral negotiations. Inspired by the show of strength from over 100 countries who pushed back.”
The Busan gathering was meant to be the final meeting of five, a process set in motion in 2022 when countries adopted a UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution promising to draft an international, legally-binding deal to tackle plastic pollution. Since then, countries have been meeting to form “international negotiating committees” (INCs) to compile a draft. Up for debate at these INC meetings were measures to reduce the scale of plastic production, phase out harmful plastic products and chemicals, and establish a financial mechanism to help developing countries implement the changes a treaty might require.
Over seven days of negotiations ending on 1 December, countries’ representatives debated a streamlined draft of a text that had ballooned at previous meetings. It was hoped they would reach a final agreement. That is not what panned out: by the final hours, deep rifts remained on key topics, blocking the path forward.
The heat of production
On the topic of plastic production especially, sparks flew in Busan. Many countries proposed text in the treaty that would lay out controls on global production of plastic, which stands at over 400 million tonnes annually, and could triple by 2050 unless curbed. The UNEA mandate for the treaty is to address plastic pollution across its full life cycle. Most countries say that starts with production, recognizing that the world is already unable to cope with the volume of plastic being made.
But throughout the treaty process, a handful of countries - including Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia - have fought such language, calling instead for downstream measures to manage pollution. This self-described “like-minded” group of countries all have large oil and petrochemical industries that form the basis of plastics.
They proposed “no text” on plastic production, meaning they did not want to impose any controls. “If you address plastic pollution, there should be no problem with producing plastics, because the problem is the pollution, not the plastics themselves,” Saudi Arabian delegate Abdelrahman bin Mohammed Algwaiz said at a plenary meeting.
According to analysis by the Centre for International Environmental Law, multiple national delegations, including Iran’s, included industry lobbyists, of which there were over 220 registered to attend INC-5. This is more people than were in the delegations of South Korea or the EU.
As INC-5 wore on, the like-minded group’s unmoving stance on production – and their resistance to restricting the use of “chemicals of concern” that may harm human health – began to grate on some negotiators. “We always try to work on proper consensus. But we know that on this topic [of production] it will be very, very difficult to have that,” Kirving Lañas, a delegate from Panama, told Dialogue Earth in the middle of the process.
‘Triple-threatened’ nations demand change
In the final days of the meeting, an unprecedented bloc of 102 countries, led by Panama and the Pacific Small Island Developing States, banded together to unanimously support proposals for a draft text that included a global plastic production reduction target. Ninety-four also supported legally-binding measures to phase out harmful plastics and chemicals.
“There are just a few voices that are blocking progress, and we cannot allow those voices to overrule the will of global citizens and almost all governments on Earth,” Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, a delegate from Panama, said during a press conference. The vocal bloc suggested that not having these elements in the treaty would be a red line for them.
“There’s not any room to compromise on those,” says Dennis Clare, a legal adviser for the Federated States of Micronesia. Islands like Micronesia face a “triple existential threat: to food, economy, and geophysical survival” from plastic pollution, he added, the lattermost referring to sea level rise and the climate impacts of emissions-intensive plastic production.
A plastic food packaging facility in Binzhou, China. Plastic production was a sore spot at INC-5, with many saying that a proposed draft text containing a global reduction target was later watered down due to disagreements (Image: FOTO / Sipa USA / Alamy)
Strikingly, the bloc featured the 27 countries of the EU, a major plastic-producing region that has typically championed plastics circularity, believing plastics are essential but should be reused where possible.
Before the recent US election, countries wanting an ambitious agreement had high hopes that the United States, a major plastics producer, would positively influence the talks. The country had come out in favor of production cuts after INC-4 in Ottawa. But before the Busan meeting, the US backed away from that position and did not publicly support proposals to cut production in Busan. Nor did China, the world’s largest producer of plastic – although towards the end of the meeting, public statements by China urged countries to take policies aligned with the “whole life cycle of plastics”.
When the chair released a final version of the text on the last day of negotiations, many felt it had weakened. The article on production still contained options for “no text”, and some of the ambitious language had been softened. The article on a potential financing mechanism was riddled with brackets, signalling disagreement. And in a section previously devoted to managing plastic products and chemicals of concern, “nearly every aspect of the text is in brackets, and ‘chemicals of concern’ has been removed from the title”, noted Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at WWF.
Emotions run high at the end
At the end stage of the talks, a visibly emotional delegate, Andre Volentras, appealed to “human decency”.
“What has the world come to?” asked Volentras, who is part of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, an intergovernmental body that provides technical support to the Pacific Islands. “With climate change, you can’t see CO2. But you can see this waste… We can see this is a huge problem, so let’s be serious about tackling it. I just find some of these filibustering and stalling tactics evil.”
At the meeting’s final plenary session, Juliet Kabera, a delegate from Rwanda which has also led ambitious proposals to cut plastic production, called on nations to “stand up for ambition”, triggering a remarkable scene where hundreds of delegates and observers stood up to applaud. But by that point, with the conference venue booked for another meeting the next day, there was no longer time to resolve differences. Hours later, the chair gavelled the meeting to a close and scheduled a new meeting – dubbed INC-5.2 – to continue the process.
There are mixed feelings about having another INC. “It’s not ideal. But I believe extending the negotiations was necessary. It’s definitely better than settling for a weak treaty,” says Salisa Traipipitsiriwat, senior campaigner at the Environmental Justice Foundation. Traipipitsiriwat adds that INC-5.2 must avoid the mistakes of INC-5, where hundreds of observers – including scientists and civil society groups – were excluded from the last three days of negotiations.
There is a risk of another meeting “simply recreating this exercise in a new location with the same cast of characters”, says Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency.
Time for a vote?
Historically, UN multilateral agreements have been guided by the principle of consensus. For the plastic treaty, there are practical reasons to aim for this again, such as not alienating major plastic producers from the process, which could threaten the effectiveness of the final deal.
If the stalemate continues, however, ambitious countries may consider another option to move the treaty forward: voting. This is a rarely-used fallback in multilateral agreements, allowing countries to move beyond an impasse, usually with a two-thirds majority.
Early on in the plastics treaty process, at INC-2 in Paris, the like-minded group of countries challenged the procedural voting rules. This made it so that if nations needed a vote to move forward, it would necessitate a time-consuming debate over the system to be used. Many observers believed this was a stalling tactic, and since then, the issue has not been revisited. Civil society groups have urged countries to reopen that discussion.
It is important “to keep in mind that this agreement is being negotiated with unprecedented speed”, says Felipe Victoria, senior manager for international plastics policy at the Ocean Conservancy. “To put it into perspective, the Paris Agreement took nine years. The High Seas Treaty took 19 years. We’re doing this one in two years.”
From here, it remains unknown how long that supposedly two-year process will stretch out. Options have been floated for INC-5.2 to be held in May, or later in 2025. In the meantime, Fiji’s “disappointed and inspired” Michael is hopeful that nations will push on.
“We trust the multilateral process will deliver the mandate of [the UNEA resolution], and urge the minority [like-minded countries] to recognise the bigger problem at hand, instead of playing victims,” he says.
The world needs to produce less plastic to really tackle plastic pollution, he insists. “As has been said several times, you can’t mop the floor with the tap on.”
Emma Bryce is a freelance journalist who covers stories focused on the environment, conservation and climate change. This reporting was supported by a travel grant from GRID-Arendal.