Some headlines are designed to attract attention. Others should serve as a warning. As El Niño-related disruption grows, the maritime industry can no longer afford to dismiss the warnings as sensationalism.
The threat is already affecting global trade. Droughts, floods, storms and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns are disrupting shipping routes, restricting port operations and threatening the production and movement of essential commodities.
And the latest forecasts suggest the worst may still be ahead. According to Everstream Analytics’ October report, the 2026–27 El Niño is expected to peak in November and December, with effects continuing through at least the first half of 2027. The report does not anticipate a return to neutral conditions before the third quarter of 2027.
Everstream reports that East Pacific storm energy was approximately 3.3 times normal for the time of year by early October. That is a measure of accumulated cyclone activity, not a prediction that every port will face storms three times as severe. Consequences will vary by location, and seasonal forecasts should be used alongside local weather and operating information.
For an industry already struggling with geopolitical uncertainty, rising costs and pressure to decarbonise, that means preparing for disruption that could extend well into next year.
But perhaps the most troubling question is not what El Niño will do next. It is why, despite years of warnings, we still seem so poorly prepared to deal with its consequences.
The cost of doing nothing
We have seen this before. During the 2023–24 drought, falling water levels forced the Panama Canal Authority to reduce daily vessel transits and restrict vessel draughts. Vessels faced longer waiting times, reduced cargo capacity and higher transit costs, while some operators diverted to considerably longer routes.
The consequences extended far beyond Panama. Longer voyages meant additional fuel consumption, increased emissions and higher costs throughout the supply chain, ultimately affecting businesses and consumers.
Everstream warns that Panama Canal draught restrictions could remain a concern during December–February. But that outlook needs to be read alongside the Canal Authority’s operating updates. In its 28 September announcement, the Authority said daily booking capacity would increase to 33 transit slots from 15 October. It also raised the authorised Neopanamax draught to 14.94 metres, citing near-average rainfall and water-saving measures.
Those improvements do not remove the winter risk, and the Authority continues to warn of a water deficit. They do show why we should not present forecast restrictions as an inevitable operating schedule. Everstream itself credits early water management with helping keep Gatún Lake levels higher than in previous El Niño years.
That deserves recognition. Preparation can make a difference, even when it cannot remove the underlying risk. The industry should examine what worked in Panama as closely as what went wrong.
Elsewhere, Everstream reports that low Rhine water levels have restricted inland shipping capacity and increased freight costs in Europe. At the same time, typhoon activity across the western Pacific threatens ports and supply chains in China, Japan and the Philippines.
The report also describes drought, wildfires, and low river levels in Southeast Asia, affecting production and transport. A port can remain open and still face disruption because cargo cannot reach it or move inland once it arrives.
These are not isolated incidents. They demonstrate how quickly disruption in one part of the world can spread through an interconnected global trading system.
Too often, however, the response remains familiar: manage the disruption once it arrives, absorb the costs and return to business as usual. We cannot keep accepting expensive improvisation where earlier preparation could have reduced the damage.
An industry that cannot afford to wait
I have argued before that vested interests, commercial pressures and fragmented decision-making continue to hold back meaningful progress across the maritime sector.
Too often, short-term commercial considerations outweigh the longer-term need for collective action. Companies understandably focus on their own operations, costs and competitiveness. But climate-related disruption does not respect corporate boundaries.
A vessel delayed by restricted canal capacity affects terminals, cargo owners, inland transport providers and ultimately consumers. No single organisation can solve that problem independently.
While El Niño is a natural climate phenomenon, the wider challenge of climate change makes our response even more urgent. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not prevent El Niño from occurring, but limiting long-term warming and strengthening resilience are essential to managing the risks facing global trade.
The industry has the technology, expertise and increasingly the data to make better decisions. What it too often lacks is the collective determination to turn that knowledge into coordinated action.
We cannot keep congratulating ourselves on individual sustainability initiatives while the wider system continues to operate in ways that create avoidable emissions, delays and inefficiencies.
The question is whether voluntary progress, however well-intentioned, can deliver change at the speed now required. I am increasingly unconvinced that it can.
Is it time for governments to intervene?
Governments, ports, shipping companies, and supply chain operators can take practical steps now.
Better forecasting and monitoring can provide earlier warnings of drought, storms and infrastructure disruption. Better information sharing can help ports and vessel operators adjust schedules, anticipate congestion, and reduce unnecessary waiting times.
Greater coordination between national authorities can strengthen emergency planning, while investment in more resilient infrastructure can help protect vulnerable trading routes and communities.
Crucially, we must also make better use of the information already available. We do not need perfect data before taking action. We need to turn existing information into decisions that improve operations, reduce emissions and strengthen resilience.
But these measures depend on cooperation across organisations and borders, something the maritime industry has repeatedly struggled to achieve consistently.
That raises an uncomfortable possibility: perhaps governments need to do more than encourage change.
Governments could require critical transport operators to demonstrate that they have tested their plans against plausible climate disruption, including the consequences for connected ports and inland transport. An alternative route should not count as a contingency plan unless the receiving port and onward transport can accommodate the cargo.
They could also establish clear requirements for sharing essential operational updates. Expected vessel arrival times, berth availability and service readiness need agreed definitions, named responsibilities and timely updates. Access should be limited to the parties that need the information, with clear rules governing its use.
Port authorities should also examine the incentives. If contracts or charging arrangements reward behaviour that creates avoidable waiting, asking everyone to collaborate better will achieve only so much. Those arrangements need to support the operational changes we are asking companies to make.
International coordination would help prevent responsible operators from being commercially disadvantaged for investing in preparation. The purpose should be to make essential cooperation dependable, with requirements that can be tested in practice.
This is not an argument for regulation simply for its own sake. Poorly designed legislation could introduce unnecessary costs and complexity without delivering meaningful environmental benefits.
But well-designed, internationally aligned rules could provide the certainty and urgency that voluntary commitments have too often failed to achieve.
If the industry cannot agree on the measures needed to protect its own future, it should not be surprised when governments decide that intervention is necessary.
The warnings are no longer hypothetical
There is another dimension to this debate that deserves greater attention: responsibility.
El Niño is not an unexpected disaster arriving without warning. Its development can be monitored, its likely effects assessed and many of its consequences anticipated.
Responsibility also means being honest about who carries the cost when preparation falls short. The effects of delayed food, fuel or essential supplies reach far beyond the companies making the transport decisions.
For countries with limited resources, the consequences of inadequate preparation can be particularly severe. The disruption extends beyond shipping schedules and commercial losses to livelihoods, food security and essential infrastructure.
The maritime industry has a vital role in helping governments meet those challenges. It connects economies, supports essential supply chains and possesses operational knowledge that can make a meaningful difference to preparedness.
But action must match that responsibility. We should already be examining vulnerable routes, improving coordination between ports and vessels, planning alternative transport arrangements and using available operational data to reduce avoidable inefficiencies.
These are not distant ambitions dependent on technologies that have yet to be invented. Much of what is required is achievable today. The real obstacle is the willingness to act collectively.
The emissions consequences need attention too. Longer voyages and additional waiting can increase fuel use, while changes in inland transport can move emissions from one activity or location to another. Operational planners will respond to safety, capacity and commercial demands. Ports still need to understand the environmental consequences and identify where they can reduce avoidable emissions.
PortXchange’s EmissionInsider supports that work by helping ports analyse emissions from ships, trucks, rail, and cargo-handling equipment, identify major sources, and assess reduction scenarios. That evidence can inform investment and help ports judge whether their measures are delivering reductions.
The time for excuses is over
The latest El Niño warnings should be more than another reminder of global trade’s vulnerability. They should force a serious examination of whether our current approach to climate resilience and emissions reduction is fit for purpose.
We know the risks. We have evidence of the consequences. And we have practical measures that could better prepare the industry.
What we cannot afford is another cycle of disruption, recovery and complacency.
I would much rather see the maritime industry demonstrate that it can deliver meaningful progress through its own initiative. But after years of fragmented commitments and painfully slow change, that confidence is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
If governments must introduce stronger, coordinated legislation to accelerate progress, perhaps that is the price of an industry that has failed to act decisively enough.
El Niño will follow its own natural course. We cannot legislate it away.
But we can decide how prepared we are for its consequences, how much unnecessary disruption we tolerate and whether we are serious about reducing our contribution to the wider climate challenge.
The weather will not wait for the maritime industry to reach a consensus. Why should the rest of the world?
─────────────────────
This article is the latest addition to our El Niño watch:
El Niño Part 2: Is mankind too selfish to protect the planet?
El Niño forces us to face up to an unwelcome truth. Do we even care?
─────────────────────
To explore where your port can reduce emissions, learn more about EmissionInsider or speak with PortXchange about custom solutions for your operational and emissions data needs.
