by Lloyd's List

THE PANAMA Canal Authority (ACP) outlined its plans for two new transhipment hubs during a presentation to the world’s leading terminal operators and ocean carriers on Monday, marking the official start of the development timetable.

The ACP has tried to get into the terminal business before. It announced plans for a terminal on the Pacific side, called Corozal, in 2013. The project failed to attract bids in 2017 and was mothballed.

The new initiative resurrects Corozal and adds a second proposed transhipment hub on ACP property on the Caribbean side.

In an interview with Lloyd’s List on Monday, ACP administrator Ricaurte Vasquez explained the transhipment concept, the rationale behind it, and why he believes there will be more interest this time around.

ACP sees expanding transhipment demand

Each terminal would have capacity of 2.5m to 3.5m teu per year.

One-on-one meetings will be held with interested parties during the first week of December “to understand their interest and what kind of concession model will be bankable”, said Vasquez.

The ACP plans to have terms and conditions for pre-qualification done by year-end, to pre-qualify bidders by February or March, and award concessions in the fourth quarter of 2026.

Why now? “To complement existing capacity,” answered Vasquez.

“Panama handles about 21m-22m teu per year, when you add up transhipment [to other countries], the transhipment that goes over to the other side [cross-isthmus by road or rail], and canal transits that do not call at a port in Panama.

“We anticipate that over the next seven or eight years, that is going to grow by about 5m teu — and there are some estimates that are for twice as much.”

He noted that 72% of the containerships that transit the canal make a call in Panama to conduct transhipment.

The Panama Canal itself has not seen growth in container cargo compared to the pre-pandemic period, despite the introduction of the neo-panamax locks in 2016.

Containerised cargo weight in fiscal year 2025 (October 2024-September 2025) through both locks totalled 49m tonnes, compared to 53.7m tonnes in FY17. 

The ACP’s growth forecast is based on regional demand. The thesis is that growth of regional economies will drive higher transhipment, which will exceed the capacity of existing Panamanian hubs, creating demand for the new facilities.

“The ports in the Caribbean are essentially transhipment. Ports operating on the Pacific side are essentially destination ports, with the exception of those in Panama, because Panama only gets about 1m teu per year, either in or out,” said Vasquez.

There are currently five transhipment terminals in Panama: three on the Caribbean side (MIT, CCT and Cristobal) and two on the Pacific side (Balboa and PSA Panama).

These five ports handled an aggregate 9.4m teu in 2024, according to statistics from the Panama Maritime Authority (AMP).

Last year’s throughput was 2.1m teu or 29% higher than in 2019, prior to the Covid pandemic. The Caribbean hubs increased by 1m teu or 23% over that five-year period, with the Pacific hubs rising by 1.1m teu or 38%.

This year is on track for another record high. The five terminals’ throughput in January-September was up 3% versus the same period in 2024, according to AMP statistics.

New port plans coincides with Hutchison controversy

ACP’s interest in terminal development was first reported in June, coinciding with the tumult over the bid by BlackRock and MSC for the non-Chinese ports of Hutchison, including Balboa and Cristobal in Panama. 

Negotiations over that sale have been extended following pushback from China over the original terms, with Cosco reportedly seeking an ownership stake.

In June, the Financial Times quoted Vasquez as raising concerns about “a significant level of concentration on terminal operators belonging to an integrated or one single shipping company”.

“Instead of feeling sorry about the situation... this is a great opportunity to put a proposal on the table,” he told the FT, citing the opportunity for the ACP to reactivate the Corozal plan.

Asked by Lloyd’s List whether the proposal for new transhipment hubs on ACP land was driven by MSC’s potential involvement in Balboa and Cristobal, he responded: “No, it has nothing to do with that. I believe there is an appetite — there is demand for more terminal capacity in Panama.

“What happened is that when the issue of BlackRock and MSC came out, we saw the opportunity,” he said. The existing terminals “are legacy ports that have been operating in Panama for 30 years. They have a different technology. So, we thought it was the right time.”

Asked why Corozal should work this time when it didn’t in the prior decade, he said: “For one, the volumes have changed.

“Second, the existing ports are vintage ports and, if carriers can commit to transhipment for, say, a 10-year horizon or something similar, that is what is going to support this on a project-finance basis. It’s not going to be on the Panama Canal’s balance sheet; it’s going to be project financing.”

On the Caribbean side, there is around 150 ha of land owned by the ACP available for development on the east bank, just north of the Atlantic Bridge.

“The Pacific side is more confined. On the Caribbean side, the entrance to the Panama Canal has a very wide approach. The turning basin there [allows] for more flexibility than the turning basin on the Pacific side, so we anticipate there will be significant interest in having a large operation on the Caribbean side.”

The ACP is flexible on how the deal could be structured. “Everything is on the table,” said Vasquez. “The whole scope of possibilities as far as structure is open for discussion.”

The key point, he said, is that “whoever works with us needs to assure us that we have a steady, incremental flow of containers moving through Panama”.