The passage of the U.S. FAIR Shipping Act in December 2019 marked an important, if somewhat underappreciated, development in the long-standing effort to introduce greater transparency into maritime freight operations. While the legislation attracted less public attention than some other trade measures of the year, those involved in shipping, port management, and logistics understood its potential implications immediately. The Act’s pilot programs, aimed at enhancing visibility into freight rates and port operations, signaled a shift in expectations regarding the availability of operational data and the accountability of key players in the shipping ecosystem.
By early 2020, the groundwork for these pilot programs was already being laid at several major U.S. ports. The Marine Exchange—a well-established platform for coordinating vessel movements and sharing navigational data—was identified as the natural venue for publishing open port-call data as envisioned under the Act. The idea, in principle at least, was fairly straightforward. By providing public access to accurate and timely information about vessel arrivals, departures, and berthing schedules, ports and shipping lines could help demystify the often opaque pricing structures that have long characterized ocean freight. Yet as anyone familiar with the sector might anticipate, the practical implementation of such transparency efforts proved anything but simple.
Port authorities and terminal operators found themselves grappling with the technical and operational challenges of standardizing data that had historically been collected in fragmented, sometimes inconsistent ways. It wasn’t just a matter of releasing port-call logs or berthing schedules; it required building systems capable of integrating this information with real-time vessel tracking data, and doing so in a way that wouldn’t inadvertently compromise commercial confidentiality or operational security. This balance—between transparency and proprietary interests—was, and remains, delicate. Some port stakeholders were understandably cautious, wary of exposing operational details that competitors or counterparties might seek to exploit.
For logistics companies, the FAIR Shipping Act’s pilots presented both an opportunity and a challenge. On the one hand, the availability of open port-call data promised new possibilities for validating the kind of performance metrics that clients increasingly demanded. On the other hand, making full use of this data required integrating it with other sources of information, notably Automatic Identification System (AIS) data. AIS, of course, had long been used for vessel tracking, collision avoidance, and safety at sea. But its application as a tool for measuring port-time-to-berth metrics—essentially, how long it took a vessel to move from anchorage to a working berth—was something newer, and not without its complexities.
AIS data, while rich in potential insights, can be messy in practice. Position signals may be interrupted or delayed. Vessels might switch off their transponders in certain circumstances, whether for legitimate operational reasons or otherwise. Moreover, correlating AIS position data with port operational milestones requires careful interpretation, particularly in busy harbors where movements can be intricate and layered. Logistics providers found themselves needing to develop or procure analytical tools capable of processing large volumes of AIS data and aligning it with port-call information in a way that produced reliable, actionable metrics.
Amid these technical and operational developments, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), charged with overseeing the FAIR Shipping Act’s implementation, encouraged stakeholders to share the results of these early transparency efforts. One mechanism proposed was the quarterly “freight transparency” scorecard. Such a document, though simple in concept, represents a significant cultural shift for an industry not traditionally known for openness. The scorecard would, at minimum, detail average port-call durations, variations in berth availability, and any observable bottlenecks that contributed to rate variability. But beyond just reporting figures, the intention was to create a feedback loop—one that would enable regulators, industry participants, and, indirectly, shippers to identify patterns and, ideally, drive improvements in efficiency.
Of course, designing these scorecards raised its own set of questions. How much detail was appropriate? Could the data be sufficiently anonymized to protect sensitive commercial interests without rendering it so aggregated as to be meaningless? Who, precisely, would take responsibility for compiling and validating the figures? These were, and to some extent still are, live debates within the sector. What became apparent fairly early on was that simply publishing data was not, on its own, enough. The value of transparency efforts hinged on the quality, consistency, and interpretability of the information made available.
Looking back at the early months of 2020, it is perhaps too soon to say whether the FAIR Shipping Act’s pilot programs will achieve their intended outcomes. The challenges of standardization, data integration, and cultural change remain considerable. And yet, for those watching the evolution of maritime logistics, there is little doubt that the Act has helped to push the conversation forward. The demand for greater visibility into freight operations—once the preserve of a few vocal shippers and advocacy groups—is now firmly on the policy agenda. The question, increasingly, is not whether transparency will deepen, but how quickly and effectively the sector can adapt to this new reality.