## Company Profile SHIPEX N.V. — Belgian freight forwarder (contact page: https://shipex.be/en/contact/). Operates from Belgium (Antwerp/Belgium hinterland corridor); offers ocean forwarding, consolidation (FCL/LCL), customs clearance and multimodal inland delivery services for exporters and importers (SME focus implied by company size/contact info). Website and public contact suggest a regional forwarder serving Benelux exporters and importers, likely active on North‑West European hub lanes (Antwerp/Zeebrugge) and trades to Africa/MENA and intra‑EU routes. ## Pain Points 1) Service reliability & lead‑time risk: Q1 2026 port congestion at Antwerp/Bruges (6–10 day delays reported) and carrier re‑routing are increasing transit variability for time‑sensitive agri/reefer cargo — forcing SHIPEX’s SME customers to carry higher safety stock or suffer missed delivery SLAs. 2) Margin pressure & surcharge unpredictability: softer average rates but persistent surcharge volatility (BAF, congestion fees, emergency surcharges) make quoting and margin protection difficult for SME shipments. 3) Digital & operational friction for SMEs: customers expect end‑to‑end visibility and simpler documentation workflows; SHIPEX may lack scalable digital channels to convert inbound exporters/importers who prefer transparent online sourcing and contracted shipment bundles. ## Intel Summary === MULTI-DIMENSION RESEARCH === === 1. [MARKET EVENTS] – PORT OF ANTWERP CONTAINER VOLUMES, CONGESTION, TRANSSHIPMENT & 2026 OUTLOOK === **Throughput & container volumes** - Port of Antwerp‑Bruges handled **266.5 million tonnes** of maritime cargo in **2025**, down **4.1% vs 2024**; container throughput was “stable” year‑on‑year despite weaker bulk segments. ([newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com](https://newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com/de/pressemitteilungen/port-of-antwerp-bruges-schlie%C3%9Ft-das-jahr-2025-mit-widerstandsf%C3%A4higkeit-in-einem-turbulent-handelsklima-ab?utm_source=openai)) - In **Q1 2026**, total maritime throughput was **65.5 million tonnes**, **‑3.2% vs Q1 2025**; **container throughput fell 5.5% in tons and 2.6% in TEU** vs Q1 2025, indicating a negative inflection after stability in 2025. ([newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com](https://newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com/en/press-releases/external-conditions-impact-port-of-antwerp-bruges-quarterly-results?utm_source=openai)) **Congestion & schedule reliability** - Antwerp‑Bruges and other North‑West European ports (Rotterdam, Hamburg) continue to experience congestion and vessel delays, with **average delays cited in the 6–10 day range** in 2025/early‑2026 analyses of European port performance. ([alixpartners.com](https://www.alixpartners.com/media/s12pyi2i/2026-container-shipping-outlook-sli01sig2026.pdf?utm_source=openai)) - Mid‑2025 reporting highlighted that growth in container traffic was “choked” by congestion: H1 2025 container throughput reached **~6.9 million TEU (+3.7% YoY)**, but the port warned that yard density and hinterland bottlenecks were constraining productivity and berthing windows. ([trans.info](https://trans.info/en/antwerp-bruges-h1-2025-414511?utm_source=openai)) - By Q1–Q3 2025, container volumes were still up vs 2024, but **Q3 2025 container throughput fell 2.4% vs Q3 2024**, interpreted locally as a sign of softer demand and some carrier schedule rationalisation after earlier congestion. ([transport-online.nl](https://www.transport-online.nl/103401/wisselend-beeld-voor-port-of-antwerp-bruges-containers-stabiel-bulk-onder-druk/?utm_source=openai)) **Transshipment mix & regulatory shocks** - Antwerp‑Bruges is both a gateway and transshipment hub; in 2025 the port reported that while it “remains a strong import‑export hub”, there was a **shift toward a higher import share** in most traffic segments. That shift typically implies relatively less pure transshipment and more final‑destination cargo into the Benelux/German hinterland. ([newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com](https://newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com/persberichten/port-of-antwerp-bruges-sluit-2025-af-met-veerkracht-in-turbulent-handelsklimaat?utm_source=openai)) - In Zeebrugge (part of Antwerp‑Bruges), the **EU ban on transshipment of Russian LNG to non‑EU destinations** weighed on energy traffic in 2025, reducing a key transshipment flow. This has re‑weighted the port’s portfolio towards containers, Ro‑Ro and conventional cargo in 2026. ([newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com](https://newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com/persberichten/port-of-antwerp-bruges-sluit-2025-af-met-veerkracht-in-turbulent-handelsklimaat?utm_source=openai)) - Container trade lane structure is also changing: restructuring of global alliances and more direct calls into Mediterranean and Baltic ports have slightly reduced some feeder/transshipment legs via Antwerp, even as the port gained market share in the Hamburg–Le Havre range (to **30.5% in 2024**, up from earlier years). ([newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com](https://newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com/persberichten/sterke-containeroverslag-beperkt-terugval-in-bewogen-eerste-kwartaal?utm_source=openai)) **2026 outlook – capacity, delays, and risk factors** - Q1 2026 port communication stresses **“external conditions”**: weaker global demand, continued geopolitical disruptions, and changing container alliances. The port is doubling down on **infrastructure, transition and safety** as foundations for long‑term growth, implying continued capex on quay extensions and hinterland connectivity through 2026–27 despite current softness. ([newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com](https://newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com/en/press-releases/external-conditions-impact-port-of-antwerp-bruges-quarterly-results?utm_source=openai)) - Sector‑wide 2026 container shipping outlooks point to: - **Large new vessel deliveries** (≈4.8 million TEU added in 2025 and continued high deliveries into 2026), expanding nominal capacity. ([supplychainandlogistics.org](https://supplychainandlogistics.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/annual-review-2026.pdf?utm_source=openai)) - **Softer average freight rates in 2026 vs 2025**, but **persistent volatility** due to geopolitical routing risks (e.g., Suez vs Cape diversions), environmental regulations, and carrier capacity management. ([spglobal.com](https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/2026/02/2026-ocean-freight-outlook-softer-rates-ahead-but-volatility-is-not-going-anywhere?utm_source=openai)) - Continued **European congestion risk**, especially at main hubs (Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp), as carriers bunch calls and use strategic blank sailings; effective capacity can feel tighter than vessel supply suggests, reinforcing the need for schedule buffers. ([alixpartners.com](https://www.alixpartners.com/media/s12pyi2i/2026-container-shipping-outlook-sli01sig2026.pdf?utm_source=openai)) **Implications for food & agri shippers via Antwerp** - For reefer and dry agri containers, the **Q1 2026 2.6% TEU drop** suggests a mild demand slowdown and/or some routing shifts to alternative North‑West European or Mediterranean ports, but not a structural collapse. ([newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com](https://newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com/en/press-releases/external-conditions-impact-port-of-antwerp-bruges-quarterly-results?utm_source=openai)) - Congestion‑driven delays (6–10 days at worst) plus volatile schedules increase the value of: - Multiple‑port allocation strategies (splitting volumes between Antwerp, Rotterdam, possibly Le Havre/Hamburg). - Longer lead times and higher safety stock for time‑sensitive food/ingredients moving through Antwerp’s cold‑chain corridors. ([alixpartners.com](https://www.alixpartners.com/media/s12pyi2i/2026-container-shipping-outlook-sli01sig2026.pdf?utm_source=openai)) **Section 1 sources:** ([newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com](https://newsroom.portofantwerpbruges.com/en/press-releases/external-conditions-impact-port-of-antwerp-bruges-quarterly-results?utm_source=openai)) === 2. [DEMAND SIGNALS] – BELGIAN FOOD & AGRI EXPORTS TO AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST, 2026 SHIFTS === **Macro trade context – Flemish/Belgian agro‑trade** - Flemish agro‑trade data show **imports up 5% and exports up 14% in volume vs 2014**, and about **+2% import and export growth vs 2023 in 2024**, indicating steady expansion, including to extra‑EU destinations. ([landbouwcijfers.vlaanderen.be](https://landbouwcijfers.vlaanderen.be/landbouw/totale-landbouw/vlaamse-agrohandel?utm_source=openai)) - Official stats group Africa and the Middle East as key growth regions for future agri‑food demand (OECD‑FAO 2025–2034 Outlook), with **Africa and some Middle Eastern economies driving import demand growth for cereals, vegetable oils, sugar and animal protein**. ([oecd.org](https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/07/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2025-2034_3eb15914/601276cd-en.pdf?utm_source=openai)) **Belgian agri‑food export patterns to Africa & Middle East (directional, recent)** (Direct, very recent country‑pair statistics are fragmented in open sources within 90 days, but several signals are visible from policy and outlook documents; below is a synthesis, not an exhaustive product‑by‑product matrix.) - Belgian exporters leverage Antwerp as a hub for: - **Cereals, flour, malt, chocolate, sugar confectionery, dairy ingredients, processed foods and beverages** into West/Central Africa and the Maghreb. - **Frozen potato products (frites), poultry cuts, and processed meat** into the Middle East and North Africa, often via reefer containers. These flows are consistent with longer‑term trade composition in Belgian agro‑exports and OECD‑FAO projections of rising demand for processed foods and animal protein in these regions. ([landbouwcijfers.vlaanderen.be](https://landbouwcijfers.vlaanderen.be/landbouw/totale-landbouw/vlaamse-agrohandel?utm_source=openai)) **Recent/2026 demand signals & freight implications (Africa & Middle East)** - **Africa**: - OECD‑FAO projects **Africa’s agricultural and food imports to grow faster than world average** through 2034, particularly for **wheat, rice, vegetable oils, sugar and poultry**, as population and urbanisation rise. ([oecd.org](https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/07/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2025-2034_3eb15914/601276cd-en.pdf?utm_source=openai)) - This reinforces sustained demand for **EU/Belgian wheat flour, oils/fats, sugar‑based products and poultry cuts**, with Antwerp as a key load port. For freight, this typically means **southbound, reefer‑ and dry‑box demand remaining structurally strong**, supporting round‑trip economics for carriers even in a soft global market. - **Middle East & North Africa (MENA)**: - MENA remains structurally import‑dependent for cereals, oils and sugar; OECD‑FAO highlights **high import reliance for wheat and barley**. ([oecd.org](https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/07/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2025-2034_3eb15914/601276cd-en.pdf?utm_source=openai)) - Belgian and broader EU exporters of **frozen potato products, chocolate, dairy ingredients, beer and beverages** have been pushing deeper into GCC and North African retail and foodservice channels; this typically appears in customs under processed foods HS 16–22. Directionally, that supports continued **reefer‑intensive export flows** out of Antwerp and Zeebrugge. **Shifting freight needs in 2026** Given weak global container demand but resilient food demand in Africa/MENA, several freight‑side shifts are likely in 2026: 1. **Greater carrier focus on resilient, consumption‑linked trades** - 2026 market intelligence suggests carriers and forwarders are gravitating toward **stable, essential cargo segments (food, FMCG, pharma)** to smooth demand volatility. For Belgian shippers, this could translate into: - Tighter competition for **premium reefer slots on West Africa and MENA services**, but also more service offerings as lines rebalance away from over‑supplied Asia–Europe mainlines. ([spglobal.com](https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/2026/02/2026-ocean-freight-outlook-softer-rates-ahead-but-volatility-is-not-going-anywhere?utm_source=openai)) 2. **Modal and routing diversification** - With continuing risk of Suez disruptions and European hub congestion, forwarders report more **multi‑hub and multi‑carrier routing strategies**: - Example: splitting volumes Antwerp/Rotterdam; occasional use of Med hubs (Algeciras, Tanger Med) combined with feedering to West Africa and the Levant when schedules or rates are favourable. ([alixpartners.com](https://www.alixpartners.com/media/s12pyi2i/2026-container-shipping-outlook-sli01sig2026.pdf?utm_source=openai)) 3. **Contracting behaviour** - 2026 ocean freight outlooks recommend **mixed contracting (fixed, index‑linked, spot)** to manage rate swings. For Belgian food exporters to Africa/Middle East, this often means: - Locking in **base allocations for key lanes (e.g., Antwerp–Tema, Antwerp–Lagos, Antwerp–Jebel Ali, Antwerp–Jeddah)** under MQC contracts. - Keeping incremental volumes flexible to exploit low‑spot episodes in a capacity‑heavy market. ([spglobal.com](https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/2026/02/2026-ocean-freight-outlook-softer-rates-ahead-but-volatility-is-not-going-anywhere?utm_source=openai)) Overall, current data points to **continued, gradually growing demand for Belgian food and agri exports into Africa and the Middle East**, with 2026 characterised by **soft but stable volumes** rather than dramatic expansion, and freight strategies centred on resilience and flexibility rather than chasing peak‑rate environments. **Section 2 sources:** ([landbouwcijfers.vlaanderen.be](https://landbouwcijfers.vlaanderen.be/landbouw/totale-landbouw/vlaamse-agrohandel?utm_source=openai)) === 3. [PROBLEM FRAMING] – EUROPEAN FREIGHT FORWARDER CHALLENGES 2026 (CONTAINER RATES, CAPACITY, DIGITAL SOURCING, ORIGIN SWITCHING, SME IMPACT) === **Rate volatility & margin pressure** - 2026 analyses highlight that **container freight rates are generally softer than in 2021–2022, but far more volatile than pre‑COVID**. Over‑capacity from the recent vessel orderbook (≈4.8m TEU delivered in 2025, more in 2026) and soft global demand have pushed average rates down, yet **spot spikes** still occur when disruptions (Red Sea/Suez rerouting, weather, port strikes) compress effective capacity. ([supplychainandlogistics.org](https://supplychainandlogistics.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/annual-review-2026.pdf?utm_source=openai)) - A recent freight‑forwarding risk study for 2026 found: - **63% of surveyed forwarders** expect **surcharge volatility (BAF, congestion, emergency surcharges)** to be their most disruptive external risk in 2026. ([sdcexec.com](https://www.sdcexec.com/safety-security/risk-compliance/news/22957198/ontegos-cloud-5-risks-threatening-margins-for-freight-forwarders?utm_source=openai)) - Softening demand in the US and Europe is limiting forwarders’ pricing power, compressing gross margins even as operating costs (labour, compliance, IT) rise. ([sdcexec.com](https://www.sdcexec.com/safety-security/risk-compliance/news/22957198/ontegos-cloud-5-risks-threatening-margins-for-freight-forwarders?utm_source=openai)) **Capacity dynamics & service reliability** - Despite nominal over‑capacity, **effective capacity is constrained** by: - Geopolitical routing changes (e.g., diversions away from the Red Sea/Suez increasing voyage times and tying up vessels). - **European port congestion**, with analyses citing 6–10 day delays at major North‑West European hubs like Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp in peak disruption periods. ([alixpartners.com](https://www.alixpartners.com/media/s12pyi2i/2026-container-shipping-outlook-sli01sig2026.pdf?utm_source=openai)) - For forwarders, this manifests as: - Unpredictable **space availability on specific sailings**, even when yearly capacity seems ample. - More frequent **blank sailings and service reshuffles**, complicating schedule planning for SME exporters and importers. **Digital buyer behaviour & sourcing shifts** - Shippers (especially mid‑market) increasingly expect end‑to‑end digital visibility: - Recent shipper feedback notes that while booking platforms have improved, **real‑time container tracking, digital Bills of Lading and integrated customs workflows remain inconsistent** across carriers and trade lanes. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/Export/comments/1sliwfp/global_trade_customers_ask_container_lines_to/?utm_source=openai)) - On the ground, freight operators on industry forums report: - Persistent use of **Excel, email and even fax** across segments of the chain; attempts to impose monolithic digital platforms often fail because “as soon as a system requires every stakeholder to log in and behave differently, adoption dies.” ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/freightforwarding/comments/1oscwbg/whats_really_stopping_digitization_in_freight/?utm_source=openai)) - Despite that, the **CAGR for adoption of digital tech in freight operations was cited around 18%**, signalling rapid but uneven digitisation. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/shipping/comments/1pm7kaz/genuine-question-for-people-working-in-freight/?utm_source=openai)) - For SME shippers, this translates into: - A growing gap between **digital‑native forwarders** (online quoting, track‑and‑trace, APIs) and traditional brokers reliant on manual processes. - More sourcing of freight services via **online marketplaces and rate platforms**, with SMEs frequently comparing multiple forwarders on price and transparency, not just long‑term relationships. **Origin switching & network re‑design** - In response to trade tensions, sanctions and resilience concerns, global supply chains are engaging in **“China+1” and broader origin diversification**; 2026 shipping outlooks link this to: - Rising intra‑Asia and South‑South trade, - More **nearshoring / friend‑shoring** of certain manufacturing into Eastern Europe, North Africa and Latin America. ([supplychainandlogistics.org](https://supplychainandlogistics.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/annual-review-2026.pdf?utm_source=openai)) - For European freight forwarders, origin switching means: - **More fragmented volume** across a wider set of origins (e.g., shifting some sourcing from China to Vietnam, India, Turkey, Morocco). - Need to maintain **broader carrier contracts and local agent networks**, raising overhead and complexity per TEU handled. **Specific pain points for SME shippers (food & agri angle)** - **Planning & inventory risk** - Long‑haul agri and food shippers (e.g., EU exporters to Africa/Middle East) must hedge against **6–10‑day variability in transit and port dwell**, increasing safety stock requirements and working capital exposure. SMEs struggle more with this than large multinationals. ([alixpartners.com](https://www.alixpartners.com/media/s12pyi2i/2026-container-shipping-outlook-sli01sig2026.pdf?utm_source=openai)) - **Rate uncertainty & budgeting** - Surcharge volatility and frequent GRIs make it difficult for SMEs to **quote firm delivered prices** to buyers; forwarders report that margins are often eroded by last‑minute fees that were not forecast at booking. ([sdcexec.com](https://www.sdcexec.com/safety-security/risk-compliance/news/22957198/ontegos-cloud-5-risks-threatening-margins-for-freight-forwarders?utm_source=openai)) - **Documentation & compliance load** - Manual document handling (paper BLs, certificates, health documents for food products) still adds **measurable days to transit** and material admin cost. Attempts to digitise often stall around integration with legacy systems and authorities. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/Export/comments/1sliwfp/global_trade_customers_ask_container_lines_to/?utm_source=openai)) - **Access to capacity & service differentiation** - In a capacity‑heavy but volatile market, large BCOs with direct carrier contracts capture the best options; SMEs depend more on forwarders’ consolidation power. As rates soften, some carriers internalise more freight via their own logistics arms, potentially squeezing independent forwarders that serve SMEs. ([sdcexec.com](https://www.sdcexec.com/safety-security/risk-compliance/news/22957198/ontegos-cloud-5-risks-threatening-margins-for-freight-forwarders?utm_source=openai)) **Strategic responses recommended for 2026** - Sector outlooks and practitioner commentary converge on a few priorities: - **Contracting mix**: combine annual fixed/ index‑linked contracts for core corridors with controlled use of spot for overflow, to mitigate both rate collapses and spikes. ([spglobal.com](https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/2026/02/2026-ocean-freight-outlook-softer-rates-ahead-but-volatility-is-not-going-anywhere?utm_source=openai)) - **Digital “layering” vs replacement**: focus on tools that **structure and coordinate existing email/Excel‑centric workflows** (e.g., shared shipment workspaces, OCR for documents, centralised rate repositories) instead of trying to force every stakeholder to log in and behave differently, as adoption often fails. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/freightforwarding/comments/1oscwbg/whats_really_stopping_digitization_in_freight/?utm_source=openai)) - **Customer segmentation**: for SME shippers, forwarders that can offer **simple, transparent digital interfaces plus advisory on risk (routes, lead times, inventory implications)** are better placed to retain and grow volumes in a low‑rate, high‑volatility 2026 environment. ([sdcexec.com](https://www.sdcexec.com/safety-security/risk-compliance/news/22957198/ontegos-cloud-5-risks-threatening-margins-for-freight-forwarders?utm_source=openai)) **Section 3 sources:** ([spglobal.com](https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/2026/02/2026-ocean-freight-outlook-softer-rates-ahead-but-volatility-is-not-going-anywhere?utm_source=openai))