## Company Profile Smart Logistics BV — Netherlands-based freight forwarder (category: freight_forwarder). Likely a small-to-mid sized NLD forwarder serving importers/exporters around Rotterdam/Amsterdam and the North Sea port cluster. Typical service mix (inferred from category and public listing): ocean & air freight bookings, customs clearance, inland trucking/barging, project/heavy-lift coordination, and warehouse/door delivery for SMEs and industrial customers. Market position: local/regional specialist that acts as the commercial and operational interface between Dutch shippers (manufacturers, traders, project customers) and deep-sea carriers/terminals; scale not public. ## Pain Points 1) Immediate pricing & margin pressure from EU ETS/FuelEU 2026: carriers are adding emissions/environmental surcharges (tens of euros per TEU and rising), which forwarders must explain, model and pass to SMEs — creating margin risk and difficult customer conversations. 2) Routing and schedule volatility from hub concentration & regional congestion: mainline Asia–Europe services are concentrated into fewer hub calls (Rotterdam/Antwerp) with periodic diversion and feeder bunching — causing short-term capacity disruptions, rebooking costs and service unreliability for clients. 3) Project cargo opportunity/risk: traditional project/ODC volumes are soft in chemicals/manufacturing but remain strong in energy-transition projects (offshore wind, hydrogen). Forwarders need access to specialized sourcing & heavy‑lift delivery channels to capture these lumpy, higher-margin flows without expanding operational risk. ## Intel Summary === MULTI-DIMENSION RESEARCH ===\n=== 1. [MARKET EVENTS] Northern European port congestion & throughput (Amsterdam–Rotterdam–Antwerp), impact on feedering & transshipment ===\n\n**Throughput levels and trends (Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea cluster)** \n- **Rotterdam – 2025 full‑year:**\n - Overall seaborne cargo throughput down **1.7% YoY** in 2025. \n - **Container throughput up 3.1% to 14.2 million TEU** (official Port of Rotterdam figure), confirming a rebound vs 2024 despite macro headwinds. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/throughput-port-rotterdam-shows-slight-decline?utm_source=openai)) \n- A secondary industry write‑up (not the port itself) claims **15.6 million TEU, +7.2% YoY in 2025**; treat as indicative of strong growth but **port’s own 14.2m TEU is the reference**. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/throughput-port-rotterdam-shows-slight-decline?utm_source=openai)) \n- **Antwerp‑Bruges – DP World Antwerp Gateway terminal:** \n - Terminal handled **2,470,700 TEU in 2025**, an **8.6% increase YoY**, its highest annual throughput on record. ([moveitmagazine.com](https://moveitmagazine.com/2026/03/16/dp-world-antwerp-gateway-sets-teu-record/?utm_source=openai)) \n- **North Sea Port (Ghent/Vlissingen/Terneuzen) – Q1 2026:** \n - Total sea cargo **15 million tonnes**, **‑9.6% vs Q1 2025**, driven by weak European chemicals and manufacturing. \n - **Container transshipment up 5% in TEU (to 47,000 TEU)**, but down **5.1% in tonnes**, signaling more but lighter boxes. ([northseaport.com](https://www.northseaport.com/en/nieuws/the-first-quarter-of-cargo-throughput-2026?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**Congestion and hub competitiveness (Rotterdam vs Antwerp)** \n- A 2025 market note on Q1 performance reported **Antwerp‑Bruges surpassing Rotterdam in container throughput for that quarter**, attributed partly to **congestion and industrial action** affecting other hubs and some diversion of transshipment. ([olgn.org](https://www.olgn.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/The-Maritime-Executive-Antwerp-Surpasses-Rotterdam-in-Q1-Containers-as-Ports-Fear-US-Tariffs.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n- Rotterdam’s 2026 Container Market Outlook (with Xeneta) describes a **structural concentration** of mainline Asia–Europe calls into a **limited number of deep‑sea hubs**, with **regional ports handling more feeder/distribution flows**. It notes that in 2025 **part of transshipment cargo was deliberately diverted from Rotterdam to nearby ports** to better balance hinterland flows and alleviate pressure. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/between-growth-and-pressure-rotterdams-2025-container-year-under-scrutiny?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**Impact on feedering & transshipment patterns (Northern Range, including Amsterdam)** \n- Rotterdam’s 2026 outlook emphasizes:\n - **“Hub‑and‑spoke” intensification:** major ocean services bunch into fewer hub calls, **raising dependency on feeders** to/from North Sea and Baltic ports. \n - **Transshipment diversion in 2025** from Rotterdam to “other ports in the region” (implicitly Antwerp‑Bruges, North Sea Port, Hamburg/Bremerhaven) to avoid bottlenecks and optimize hinterland asset utilization. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/between-growth-and-pressure-rotterdams-2025-container-year-under-scrutiny?utm_source=openai)) \n- North Sea Port’s Q1‑2026 data (TEU +5%) suggests **some incremental feeder/transshipment role** for that cluster even as bulk volumes soften. ([northseaport.com](https://www.northseaport.com/en/nieuws/the-first-quarter-of-cargo-throughput-2026?utm_source=openai)) \n- Publicly available 2026 data for **Amsterdam** specifically on container throughput and congestion is sparse; Amsterdam remains **primarily a bulk/energy and shortsea hub** rather than a primary Asia–Europe container gateway. Most Asia‑Europe container transshipment for the Netherlands is still concentrated in **Rotterdam**, with some overflow/alternative routings via **Antwerp‑Bruges and North Sea Port**.\n\n**Operational congestion picture, 2025–early 2026** \n- The Antwerp Gateway record year was achieved **“despite port congestion and industrial action”** in parts of the logistics sector, indicating that congestion was present but manageable via operational measures. ([moveitmagazine.com](https://moveitmagazine.com/2026/03/16/dp-world-antwerp-gateway-sets-teu-record/?utm_source=openai)) \n- Rotterdam’s review of 2025 describes:\n - **Pressure on berth windows and yard capacity**, partly from **Red Sea re‑routing peaks** (vessels arriving in bunches) and **North European labour actions**. \n - A strategy of **spreading transshipment flows** and **prioritizing hinterland connectivity** (rail/barge/truck) to maintain acceptable dwell times. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/between-growth-and-pressure-rotterdams-2025-container-year-under-scrutiny?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**Takeaways for feedering & transshipment in 2026** \n- **Feeder volumes into/out of Rotterdam and Antwerp‑Bruges likely continue to grow** in TEU terms, even with soft macro demand, because:\n - Mainline calls are more concentrated; more secondary ports are served via feeders. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/between-growth-and-pressure-rotterdams-2025-container-year-under-scrutiny?utm_source=openai)) \n - Smaller North Sea ports like North Sea Port show **container TEU growth despite total tonnage declines**, consistent with a feeder/transshipment role expansion. ([northseaport.com](https://www.northseaport.com/en/nieuws/the-first-quarter-of-cargo-throughput-2026?utm_source=openai)) \n- **Operational congestion risk remains elevated** but not at 2021–22 crisis levels; it manifests more as **periodic peaks** (often linked to schedule disruptions and labour actions) that drive:\n - Short‑term **feeder schedule unreliability** and bunching. \n - **Opportunistic diversion of transshipment** between Rotterdam, Antwerp‑Bruges, and other regional ports.\n\n\n**Sources (Market Events):** ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/throughput-port-rotterdam-shows-slight-decline?utm_source=openai)) \n\n\n=== 2. [DEMAND SIGNALS] Europe–Asia container freight market 2026: rates, capacity, route shifts, project/ODC cargo from NL ===\n\n**Spot & FAK rate levels, early 2026 (Asia → Europe)** \n- MSC FAK announcement effective **22–29 March 2026** (Far East → Europe) gives current benchmark levels: \n - **To Northern Europe** (including Netherlands): not fully itemized in the excerpt, but for reference, **to Eastern Mediterranean** MSC sets **USD 4,500 per 20’** and **USD 6,200 per 40’/HC**, including ECA surcharge. \n - ECA surcharge for Med & Northern Europe destinations (Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, UK, Netherlands, France) is **USD 15/TEU** (VATOS). ([container-news.com](https://container-news.com/msc-announces-new-freight-rates/?utm_source=openai)) \n- Various carriers and analysts (cross‑checked via recent container market notes) place **Far East–North Europe spot rates in Q1–Q2 2026** broadly in the **USD 3,000–4,500/FEU** range depending on surcharges and service, materially above pre‑pandemic baselines but below the 2021‑22 spike (inferred from 2025–26 market reviews, aligned with MSC’s FAK guidance). ([container-news.com](https://container-news.com/msc-announces-new-freight-rates/?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**Capacity & service deployment (Asia–Europe, 2025–26)** \n- Rotterdam’s 2026 Container Market Outlook notes:\n - **Large mainline Asia–Europe services are increasingly concentrated** at a **smaller set of Northern Range and Med hubs**, while regional ports pick up **short‑sea and feeder** roles. \n - Some **transshipment rebalancing in 2025**, with cargo diverted away from Rotterdam to other hubs to optimize network utilization. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/between-growth-and-pressure-rotterdams-2025-container-year-under-scrutiny?utm_source=openai)) \n- UNCTAD’s Review of Maritime Transport 2025 comments that despite Red Sea disruptions, **global container fleet capacity continues to expand**, outpacing demand growth and putting **downward pressure on base freight rates**, even as regulatory and fuel costs rise. ([unctad.org](https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2025ch3_en.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**Route shifts: nearshoring to Turkey/Balkans & Med transshipment** \n- Recent Europe trade and logistics commentary (including Rotterdam’s 2026 outlook) highlights:\n - **Growth of production and sourcing in Turkey and parts of the Western Balkans**, leading to:\n - Increased **short‑sea/feeder flows into North European hubs** (Rotterdam, Antwerp‑Bruges, North Sea ports). \n - **More direct Med‑based distribution**, with deep‑sea calls into central/eastern Med hubs and subsequent feedering into the Adriatic, Aegean, and Black Sea. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/between-growth-and-pressure-rotterdams-2025-container-year-under-scrutiny?utm_source=openai)) \n - The 2024–25 Red Sea crisis accelerated **rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope**, lengthening rotations and encouraging carriers to **enhance Med hub usage** (Piraeus, Gioia Tauro, Algeciras/Valencia) for time and cost optimization; this persists in planning assumptions into 2026. ([unctad.org](https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2025ch3_en.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n- Net effect for Northern Europe in 2026:\n - **Asia–North Europe loops remain core**, but **more Asia–Med capacity and hub‑and‑spoke distribution from the Med** is evident. \n - **Turkey/Balkans nearshoring** sends a greater share of EU‑bound containers via **Med gateways and intra‑EU truck/rail corridors**, marginally displacing direct Asia–North Europe flows.\n\n**Demand for project / ODC cargo from Netherlands shippers (2026)** \n- Evidence is more qualitative and project‑specific, but several signals can be distilled:\n\n- North Sea Port Q1‑2026 data shows **broad weakness in bulk and breakbulk linked to chemicals and manufacturing**, which are typical users of heavy / project cargo, suggesting **softer volumes in some industrial project segments**. ([northseaport.com](https://www.northseaport.com/en/nieuws/the-first-quarter-of-cargo-throughput-2026?utm_source=openai)) \n- However, Netherlands‑linked **energy transition and infrastructure** projects (offshore wind, hydrogen, grid upgrades) continue to underpin **specialized project cargo demand**:\n - Rotterdam notes in its 2025 annual review the progress of **Shell’s Holland Hydrogen I electrolyser**, to be commissioned end‑**2026**, one of several large‑scale industrial projects requiring **oversized components and heavy‑lift logistics** via Dutch ports. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/throughput-port-rotterdam-shows-slight-decline?utm_source=openai)) \n - Project cargo and heavy‑lift trade press through 2024–25 report continuing **flow of offshore wind components, transformers, and oversized steel structures** via Dutch and Belgian ports, even in a weaker general cargo environment (indicative, not all 2026‑dated). \n- Taking these together, for **Netherlands shippers in 2026**:\n - **General manufacturing‑related project/ODC demand appears subdued** due to weak chemical/industrial output in Europe. ([northseaport.com](https://www.northseaport.com/en/nieuws/the-first-quarter-of-cargo-throughput-2026?utm_source=openai)) \n - **Energy‑transition‑related ODC (offshore wind, hydrogen, grid, data centers)** remains a **pocket of solid demand**, supporting specialized carriers and forwarders operating out of Rotterdam, Amsterdam (IJmuiden offshore connection), and North Sea Port. ([portofrotterdam.com](https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/between-growth-and-pressure-rotterdams-2025-container-year-under-scrutiny?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**Implications for Netherlands‑based shippers & forwarders** \n- For standard containerized exports/imports on Asia–Europe trades:\n - Expect **elevated but more stable FAK/spot levels** vs 2019, increasingly **surcharge‑driven (ETS, ECA, fuel)** rather than pure base rate spikes. ([container-news.com](https://container-news.com/msc-announces-new-freight-rates/?utm_source=openai)) \n - **Capacity availability generally adequate** due to fleet growth, but schedule and routing volatility persists due to geopolitical and regulatory disruptions. ([unctad.org](https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2025ch3_en.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n- For **project/ODC cargo**, Netherlands remains strategically important due to:\n - Its **industrial base and offshore energy corridor**, generating consistent though project‑lumpy flows. \n - Access to **specialized terminals, barging, and heavy‑lift capabilities** across Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Zeeland/Belgian border ports.\n\n**Sources (Demand Signals):** ([container-news.com](https://container-news.com/msc-announces-new-freight-rates/?utm_source=openai)) \n\n\n=== 3. [PROBLEM FRAMING] EU ETS, CII/EEXI, port fees & cost pass‑through 2024–2026 – impact on NL forwarders and traders ===\n\n**EU ETS for shipping: timeline & scope (2024–2026)** \n- Maritime transport entered the **EU ETS on 1 January 2024**. Phase‑in of coverage for in‑scope ships (≥5,000 GT on commercial voyages): \n - **40% of verified emissions in 2024** \n - **70% in 2025** \n - **100% from 2026 onwards** ([shipfinex.com](https://www.shipfinex.com/blog/eu-ets-for-shipping?utm_source=openai)) \n- Scope of emissions (CO₂, and from 2026 also CH₄ and N₂O): \n - **CO₂ emissions from 2024**, \n - **Methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) included from 2026**, increasing cost impact especially for LNG‑fuelled ships. ([bergermaritiem.nl](https://www.bergermaritiem.nl/en/eu-ets-shipping?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**Cost impact estimates (per ship, per TEU)** \n- Example modeling (Shipfinex / DNV‑style analysis): \n - A ship emitting **10,000 tCO₂/year** under ETS coverage pays **€650k at €65/t**, **€850k at €85/t**, and **€1m at €100/t** carbon price. \n - A **10,000‑TEU Asia–Europe container ship** could face around **€11.4 million/year** in ETS costs at **full 100% coverage in 2026**, assuming **€80/t carbon**. ([shipfinex.com](https://www.shipfinex.com/blog/eu-ets-for-shipping?utm_source=openai)) \n- Sector‑wide impact per cargo unit (UNCTAD, CE Delft and related analyses): \n - For bulk trades, EU‑ETS adds on the order of **$0.40/t in 2024**, rising to **$0.69/t in 2025** for specific sample routes; for crude oil it is estimated at **$0.64/t in 2024**, **$1.12/t in 2025**, scaling further in 2026. ([unctad.org](https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2025ch3_en.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n - For containers, recent ETS impact studies and forwarder advisories place **early‑phase ETS surcharges in the ~€10–30/TEU range**, with escalation expected as coverage reaches 100% and carbon prices rise. ([freightamigo.com](https://www.freightamigo.com/en/blog/logistics/eu-emissions-trading-system-ets-for-shipping-what-it-means-for-global-maritime-trade/?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**2026 surcharges in practice (Asia–Europe)** \n- A 2026 advisory on explaining ETS to logistics service providers (LSPs) describes ETS cost pass‑through formulae using emissions per TEU, voyage share in ETS scope, coverage factor, and EUA price; it emphasizes that **2026 marks the shift from pilot to full‑coverage cost on EU‑linked shipping**, with full (100%) emissions coverage. ([blogs.tradlinx.com](https://blogs.tradlinx.com/eu-ets-2026-for-lsps-how-to-explain-the-new-emissions-surcharges-to-your-customers/?utm_source=openai)) \n- Carriers are increasingly introducing **explicit “EU ETS” or “emissions” surcharges** on top of base freight, often **blended with fuel and environmental add‑ons** rather than a single transparent line item, complicating cost attribution for shippers and forwarders. ([blogs.tradlinx.com](https://blogs.tradlinx.com/eu-ets-2026-for-lsps-how-to-explain-the-new-emissions-surcharges-to-your-customers/?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**CII, EEXI & FuelEU Maritime – regulatory overlay** \n- **IMO’s EEXI and CII** (in force since 2023) require:\n - **Design efficiency (EEXI)** compliance for existing ships and \n - **Annual CII ratings (A–E)** for operational carbon intensity, with corrective action plans required for repeatedly poor (D/E) performers. These rules are global and interact with EU measures via ship deployment decisions and speed management. ([cedelft.eu](https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/06/CE_Delft_220400_CII_and_EU_maritime_decarbonisation_Def.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n- **FuelEU Maritime (EU Regulation 2023/1805)**:\n - Promotes the use of **renewable and low‑carbon fuels** by imposing a **greenhouse‑gas (GHG) intensity limit on energy used on board** by ships calling at EU ports. \n - Requires **monitoring plans submitted by 31 August 2024** (or within two months of first EU call thereafter), with **progressively stricter GHG intensity limits from 2025 onward**, backed by penalties. ([transport.ec.europa.eu](https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/maritime/decarbonising-maritime-transport-fueleu-maritime_en?utm_source=openai)) \n- Port dues and incentive schemes:\n - The CE Delft study on CII and EU maritime decarbonisation documents how **European ports and canal/dues authorities are linking port fees or rebates to environmental performance**, rewarding higher CII ratings or use of cleaner fuels, creating **port‑level financial incentives overlapping with ETS/FuelEU**. ([cedelft.eu](https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/06/CE_Delft_220400_CII_and_EU_maritime_decarbonisation_Def.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**National implementation & oversight (Netherlands specific)** \n- In the Netherlands, enforcement of EU ETS for shipping is overseen by the **Netherlands Emissions Authority (NEa)**, which supervises compliance and penalties for ships and companies under Dutch jurisdiction. ([bergermaritiem.nl](https://www.bergermaritiem.nl/en/eu-ets-shipping?utm_source=openai)) \n- Dutch ports (Rotterdam, Amsterdam, North Sea Port) are aligning port dues and green incentives with EU decarbonisation frameworks, e.g. **rebates for cleaner ships or alternative fuel use**, though specific 2026 tariff tables vary by port and are subject to revision; underlying trend is **higher base port costs, partially offset for “green” tonnage**. ([cedelft.eu](https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/06/CE_Delft_220400_CII_and_EU_maritime_decarbonisation_Def.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**Cost pass‑through dynamics for freight forwarders & importers/exporters (Netherlands, 2026)** \n- Recent legal and logistics advisory papers aimed at shippers and forwarders highlight several patterns:\n\n- **Carriers treat ETS as a direct, legally binding cost per voyage**, and are generally **passing it through fully** via:\n - Dedicated **ETS or “emissions” surcharges**, \n - Adjustments to **bunker adjustment factors (BAF)** and **environmental surcharges**, \n - Or folded into **all‑in FAK rates** on key lanes such as Asia–North Europe. ([bergermaritiem.nl](https://www.bergermaritiem.nl/en/eu-ets-shipping?utm_source=openai)) \n- HFW’s analysis of EU ETS impact on shippers/forwarders notes that:\n - In many standard contracts (liner bills, service contracts), **shipowners retain operational control and thus ETS liability**, but **charter parties and commercial terms are being revised** so that **emissions costs are borne by cargo interests via higher freight**, particularly for voyage charters and time charters. ([hfw.com](https://www.hfw.com/app/uploads/2024/04/005458-HFW-EU-ETS-Evaluating-the-potential-impact-on-shippers-and-freight-forwarders.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n- A 2025 CLECAT‑related monitoring study finds that:\n - The **incremental ETS cost per container is still relatively small vs total freight**, but potentially **significant for low‑margin commodities and SMEs**. \n - There is **limited evidence of large‑scale trade diversion** away from the EU purely due to ETS so far, but **concern among European shippers about competitiveness** vs non‑EU ports and routings (e.g., transshipment via non‑EU hubs). ([clecat.org](https://www.clecat.org/media/report-on-monitoring-the-impacts-of-the-eu-ets-extension-to-maritime-transport.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n\n**Impacts specific to Dutch freight forwarders and traders in 2026** \n\n1. **Direct freight cost inflation & complexity** \n - Dutch forwarders handling Asia–Europe and intra‑EU maritime shipments are facing:\n - **Line‑item ETS/emissions surcharges in the order of tens of euros per TEU in 2024–25**, with **higher levels expected from 2026** as coverage fully phases in and CH₄/N₂O are included. ([blogs.tradlinx.com](https://blogs.tradlinx.com/eu-ets-2026-for-lsps-how-to-explain-the-new-emissions-surcharges-to-your-customers/?utm_source=openai)) \n - **Blended environmental surcharges** that make it harder to pass transparent cost increases downstream to cargo owners. \n - For importers/exporters, this translates into:\n - **Higher landed cost per tonne/unit**, especially on **long‑haul Asia–EU routes** with large in‑scope voyage shares. ([shipfinex.com](https://www.shipfinex.com/blog/eu-ets-for-shipping?utm_source=openai)) \n\n2. **Administrative & compliance burden** \n - While shipowners hold primary ETS compliance obligations, **forwarders and shippers in the Netherlands are increasingly asked to provide emissions data**, participate in **scope‑3 GHG accounting**, and engage in **contractual negotiations on who carries ETS and FuelEU costs**. ([bergermaritiem.nl](https://www.bergermaritiem.nl/en/eu-ets-shipping?utm_source=openai)) \n - Dutch firms shipping via Rotterdam must also navigate **port‑level environmental incentive schemes** (discounts for cleaner tonnage, shore power use, etc.), which affect **carrier selection and routing** decisions.\n\n3. **Routing & competitive positioning** \n - The combined effect of **EU ETS, FuelEU, and port incentives** strengthens the economic case for:\n - **Slower steaming and operational optimisation** by carriers, lengthening transit times but reducing emissions per TEU. \n - **Deployment of more efficient tonnage** on EU‑linked routes, potentially affecting service patterns at Dutch ports. ([unctad.org](https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2025ch3_en.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n - There is an emerging, but not yet dominant, risk of **cargo diversion to non‑EU transshipment hubs** (e.g., North Africa, UK if outside scope scenarios, Middle East) to **minimise ETS‑exposed voyage share**, though existing studies up to late 2025 suggest **the effect remains limited so far**. ([clecat.org](https://www.clecat.org/media/report-on-monitoring-the-impacts-of-the-eu-ets-extension-to-maritime-transport.pdf?utm_source=openai)) \n\n4. **Strategic response for Netherlands‑based actors** \n - Forwarders and shippers in the Netherlands are being advised to:\n - **Quantify ETS cost by lane and customer** using per‑TEU or per‑tonne models similar to the Tradlinx example, to support **transparent surcharge discussions**. ([blogs.tradlinx.com](https://blogs.tradlinx.com/eu-ets-2026-for-lsps-how-to-explain-the-new-emissions-surcharges-to-your-customers/?utm_source=openai)) \n - **Leverage “green corridors” and cleaner services** (LNG, methanol‑ready, biofuel blends) where port dues and ETS costs may be relatively lower over time. ([transport.ec.europa.eu](https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/maritime/decarbonising-maritime-transport-fueleu-maritime_en?utm_source=openai)) \n - Consider **modal shifts (rail/barge, shortsea)** where feasible from the Netherlands to reduce overall GHG footprint and mitigate cost exposure on long-haul maritime legs.\n\n**Sources (Problem Framing):** ([shipfinex.com](https://www.shipfinex.com/blog/eu-ets-for-shipping?utm_source=openai))\n