Asia Oriental y el Pacífico enfrentan un desafío de inversión marítima de 900 mil millones de dólares

East Asia and the Pacific faces a monumental challenge in maritime infrastructure, requiring nearly USD 900 billion in investment through 2040 to sustain the region's position as the world's largest trading and manufacturing hub. According to a recent World Bank report, the aging fleet, rising trade volumes, and shift toward alternative fuels are placing increasing strain on critical shipping networks essential to the region’s economic expansion. This demand is driven by the need to expand port capacities to accommodate an additional 300 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) by 2040. Modernizing ports alone would cost USD 180 billion, while upgrading regional and domestic fleets would require more than USD 280 billion. The significance of this investment becomes clear when considering the economic impact of maritime trade in the region. It contributes up to USD 3.7 trillion to the economy, moving over 6 billion tons of cargo, nearly half of all seaborne cargo traded globally. Each ton of cargo transported through the region’s ports generates approximately USD 155 in total economic output and USD 75 directly to gross domestic product (GDP). For instance, a ton of imported steel can serve as a key input for industries producing vehicles, machinery, or building materials, creating ripple effects far beyond the initial cargo movement. The strategic importance of the region is further underscored by its dominance in key maritime corridors. The Strait of Malacca, bordered by several East Asian and Pacific nations, saw an estimated 38 percent of global maritime trade pass through in 2023, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Over 100,000 vessels traverse the strait annually, making it the busiest maritime chokepoint in the world, with more than double the traffic of the Strait of Hormuz under normal conditions. This high level of activity highlights the vulnerability of the region’s shipping routes to disruptions, whether due to geopolitical tensions, environmental factors, or infrastructure limitations. Singapore stands out as a prime example of the region’s maritime prowess. In 2024, the nation recorded merchandise trade valued at USD 964 billion, roughly 179 percent of its USD 540 billion GDP. Its ports handled approximately 41 million TEUs of container traffic and processed 295 million tons of seaborne trade, positioning it as the second busiest container port globally. Neighboring Malaysia also demonstrated robust maritime activity, with merchandise trade reaching USD 631 billion, or nearly 150 percent of its USD 422 billion GDP. Malaysian ports managed another 28 million TEUs, handling 447 million tons of seaborne trade, with Port Klang ranking among the world’s busiest. Indonesia, meanwhile, processed the highest volume of cargo among the three, handling 900 million tons. China exemplifies the scale and efficiency of the region’s largest ports. The Port of Shanghai became the first in history to move more than 50 million TEUs in a single year, showcasing the immense capacity of these facilities. Its newly developed automated terminals operate with about 70 percent less labor and achieve 30 percent greater productivity. On average, container vessels spend just one to 1.2 days at Chinese ports, compared to two days at the Port of Los Angeles. With six of the world’s top 10 busiest ports located in China, the nation plays a pivotal role in maintaining global maritime connectivity. Beyond operational costs, delays caused by congestion or inefficiencies can significantly impact shipping schedules. Ships can spend up to 9 percent of their time waiting at anchorage, reducing the time available for subsequent voyages. Such bottlenecks highlight the urgent need for modernization efforts aimed at improving throughput and reducing wait times. As the region continues to drive global trade, addressing these challenges through substantial investment will be crucial to sustaining its economic leadership.