IN Brief:
- COSCO Shipping Ports handled 61.3 million TEU during the first half of 2026, up 8.2% year on year.
- Overseas terminal throughput increased 18.4% to 20.5 million TEU, outpacing the wider portfolio.
- Chancay handled 201,800 TEU, while Suez Canal Container Terminal volumes rose 22.9% to 3.04 million TEU.
COSCO Shipping Ports handled 61.3 million TEU across the terminals included in its monthly reporting during the first half of 2026, representing an increase of 8.2% from the same period last year.
June throughput reached 10.58 million TEU, up 6%, while second-quarter volumes rose 7.4% to 31.61 million TEU. The published figures exclude Qingdao Port International and Container Terminal Tollerort, which do not provide monthly throughput data.
Overseas terminals, excluding Tollerort, produced the strongest growth within the portfolio, increasing volumes by 18.4% to 20.5 million TEU. Their expansion considerably outpaced the aggregate network and raised the contribution made by assets outside mainland China.
CSP Chancay Terminal in Peru handled 201,800 TEU during the first half, an increase of 68.2%, while Suez Canal Container Terminal processed 3.04 million TEU, up 22.9%. Facilities in Laem Chabang, Singapore, and other international markets also contributed to the rise.
COSCO’s overseas terminal portfolio gives the wider shipping group positions across major east-west and regional trade corridors. Port interests can provide berth access, operating data, network coordination, and investment alignment alongside its container-shipping and logistics activities.
Throughput growth does not necessarily indicate an equivalent improvement in cargo velocity. A terminal can process more containers while vessel waits, yard occupancy, gate congestion, or inland delays also increase, so volume must be considered alongside berth productivity and landside performance.
Chancay occupies a particularly prominent position within the portfolio because it provides a large Pacific gateway on South America’s west coast. Direct services to Asia can reduce dependence on established regional hubs, although the terminal’s long-term performance will also depend on roads, customs, depots, warehouses, feeder links, and inland distribution capacity.
Rapid early growth at a newly developed gateway can result from services being transferred from other terminals as well as underlying trade expansion. The durability of Chancay’s increase will become clearer once carrier schedules, shipper routings, and inland connections settle into regular patterns.
Suez Canal Container Terminal operates within a different network environment, where services using the eastern Mediterranean and Suez corridor have been exposed to geopolitical disruption and extensive rerouting. Its volume increase therefore sits alongside significant changes in vessel schedules rather than a wholly stable trade pattern.
Container-terminal groups increasingly balance assets in mature gateways with investments in emerging ports. Established locations offer dense shipping and logistics networks, while newer facilities can provide land, deep water, modern equipment, and the opportunity to design more efficient rail and road connections.
Global port networks also create exposure to varying regulations, labour markets, concession structures, currency conditions, and geopolitical risks. Operational practices that perform well in one country cannot always be transferred unchanged to another, even when equipment and software are standardised.
The concentration of container handling within large terminal groups can improve access to capital and technology, but it also increases the network effect of disruption. A cyber incident, labour stoppage, weather closure, or yard bottleneck at a major hub can affect several shipping services and substantial quantities of inventory simultaneously.
Carrier rotations are continuing to shift as alliances and shipping lines rebalance gateway coverage. Gdansk’s addition to a Far East service provided another recent example of port selection changing in response to capacity, cargo demand, and network priorities.
Terminal growth also increases energy consumption through crane moves, yard transfers, reefer connections, lighting, truck visits, and rail operations. Electrified handling equipment, shore power, renewable generation, and appointment systems can moderate that increase, although adoption remains uneven across global portfolios.
Reported TEU figures can be influenced by transhipment, empty-container repositioning, and service changes as well as import and export demand. A container handled twice during transhipment contributes more terminal activity than a box moving directly inland, while an empty unit counts towards throughput despite carrying no commercial cargo.
Cargo owners therefore continue to assess terminals through reliability, dwell, damage rates, customs performance, equipment availability, and inland connectivity rather than scale alone. High volume can support greater service frequency and investment, but it can also produce intense operational peaks when several large vessels arrive close together.
Yards, gates, rail ramps, depots, and surrounding roads must absorb the same growth recorded at the berth. Where inland evacuation falls behind vessel operations, containers remain on terminal longer, consuming space and slowing subsequent exchanges.
COSCO’s first-half performance shows that its overseas assets are expanding much faster than the wider reported network. The portfolio’s next test will be whether its fastest-growing terminals can preserve vessel productivity and landside reliability as their volumes increase.
At 61.3 million TEU for the first six months, the terminal operation is on a strong trajectory for 2026. Sustainable growth will depend on moving those containers beyond the quay with the same consistency used to handle them from the vessel.
