For most of the past half-century, the logic of global freight infrastructure followed a consistent pattern. Manufacturing concentrated heavily in Asia, while much of the purchasing power sat in North America and Europe. Container services, deep-water ports, freight forwarding networks and distribution infrastructure developed around those flows because that was where the volume was.
That model remains important. Asia continues to be the centre of global manufacturing, while the major Asia-Europe and transpacific corridors remain among the world’s most significant trade lanes. But they are no longer the only flows shaping freight demand.
Trade between developing economies has expanded considerably over the past three decades, creating stronger commercial links between Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. UNCTAD’s January 2026 Global Trade Update reported that South-South merchandise exports had risen from around $500 billion in 1995 to $6.8 trillion in 2025, with 57% of developing-country exports now going to other developing markets, compared with 38% in 1995. Its July/August update subsequently put total South-South merchandise trade in 2025 at approximately $7.2 trillion. The two figures describe different measures, but both point to the same structural shift.
The logistics implications are significant because growing trade does not automatically create an equally mature freight network. Some South-South corridors now have strong liner connectivity, established ports and experienced logistics providers. Others remain dependent on transshipment, limited sailing frequencies, developing inland infrastructure or customs processes that introduce considerable variability.
For businesses expanding across these markets, the distinction between a trade route that exists and a trade route that can be operated consistently is becoming increasingly important.
The trade is growing, but the cargo is changing too
South-South trade covers a wide range of products, and the cargo profile matters because different goods place very different demands on logistics infrastructure.
Commodities and processed materials remain important. Indonesia’s downstream nickel industry is a useful example of how industrial policy and regional manufacturing demand can reshape freight flows. More processing now takes place within Indonesia before products enter Asian manufacturing networks, creating logistics requirements that differ from those associated with exporting raw materials.
Copper provides another example. China sources copper and copper products from a wide range of developing economies, linking resource-producing countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia with one of the world’s largest manufacturing markets. These movements can involve combinations of mining infrastructure, inland transport, bulk handling and containerised or specialised port operations depending on the product.
Agricultural commodities, food products and energy add another layer. Mineral exports may depend heavily on rail connections and dedicated bulk facilities at origin. Food products require reliable inspection and border processes, while pharmaceuticals and other temperature-sensitive cargo depend on cold-chain infrastructure that can maintain controlled conditions across multiple jurisdictions.
Manufactured goods and intermediate components are becoming increasingly important as well. Asian manufacturers are supplying more parts, sub-assemblies and production inputs to regional partners, strengthening value chains across China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and India. A component may move between several Asian economies before a finished product reaches its final market.
This means the growth of South-South trade cannot be measured purely by asking how many more containers are moving. The composition of that trade determines what infrastructure is required and where the pressure points emerge.
There is no single South-South logistics model
One of the more useful distinctions when assessing emerging trade corridors is that geography alone tells us very little about how a route will perform.
Some corridors have frequent direct services, modern container terminals and mature forwarding networks. Others rely heavily on transshipment through regional hubs, with fewer sailing options and greater exposure to missed connections. Inland transport can be highly developed in one market and much less predictable in another.
A published sailing schedule therefore tells only part of the story. A shipper assessing a new corridor needs to understand service frequency, transshipment exposure, port dwell times, storage availability and the reliability of inland transport at both ends. These factors influence booking flexibility, inventory requirements, demurrage exposure and whether a delivery commitment can realistically be achieved.
A route with one weekly direct sailing may offer fewer connection risks but leave little flexibility if that sailing is missed. A route with several weekly services through a hub may offer more frequency while introducing an additional handling and connection point. Neither model is automatically better. The appropriate choice depends on the cargo, service requirement and alternatives available if the primary plan fails.
This is where corridor experience becomes valuable. Knowing that a service exists is very different from knowing how it performs during peak season, port congestion or a period of reduced capacity.
Customs can be as important as physical infrastructure
Physical infrastructure is only one part of the challenge. Countries along the same emerging trade corridor can operate different customs documentation, digital platforms, inspection requirements and enforcement practices. A shipment moving from an Asian manufacturing origin through a Middle Eastern hub into an African destination may therefore encounter several customs and transit regimes before reaching its final customer.
The problem is often not a dramatic border closure. It is the accumulation of smaller inconsistencies: incomplete documentation, classification issues, additional inspections, systems that do not communicate properly or local requirements that differ from what the shipper expects.
Those issues tend to appear as longer clearance times, storage charges, re-documentation or missed delivery windows. UNCTAD has increasingly highlighted the role of digitalisation and greater transparency in making trade routes more predictable. This becomes particularly relevant as companies diversify their supply chains and begin using corridors that may not have the same level of procedural maturity as established Asia-Europe routes.
For logistics operators, customs knowledge therefore needs to be considered part of corridor capability rather than simply an administrative service performed after the freight has arrived.
Asia is at the centre of the new network
Asia is not simply participating in the growth of South-South trade. It is driving much of it. China remains a major supplier of intermediate goods, machinery, materials and components across Asia, Africa and the Middle East. India is strengthening commercial links across the Gulf, Africa and Southeast Asia, while ASEAN economies are becoming increasingly integrated through manufacturing and regional supply chains.
UNCTAD’s analysis of early 2026 trade reinforces the importance of the region. East Asia was the main engine of South-South trade growth during the first quarter, with UNCTAD noting that trade among developing economies contracted when East Asia was excluded from the calculation.
This is important from a logistics perspective because it creates more intra-regional movement around existing global corridors. A product no longer necessarily moves from an Asian factory directly to a consumer market in Europe or North America. It may move between several production locations first, with raw materials, components and intermediate products crossing borders before final assembly or distribution.
Regional hubs consequently become important connection points within these networks. Singapore, Port Klang and Colombo, for example, occupy different positions within Asian shipping networks and provide different combinations of direct services, transshipment connections and hinterland access.
The largest hub is not automatically the best hub for every corridor. Service connectivity, cargo compatibility, port performance and the onward inland network often matter more than overall throughput.
The Gulf is becoming an important bridge between regions
The Middle East increasingly sits at the intersection of several growing trade relationships. The Gulf’s geographical position between Asia, Africa and Europe has long supported its role as a logistics and distribution centre. Recent disruptions have highlighted how quickly conditions around the region can influence wider freight networks.
The 2026 disruption around the Strait of Hormuz has affected shipping flows, energy markets and transport costs, with UNCTAD reporting significant knock-on effects across global trade. The Strait normally carries around a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, alongside substantial volumes of LNG and other commodities.
The disruption has also encouraged cargo owners and governments to reassess alternative routes. That does not mean every alternative route will become commercially viable, but it does reinforce the importance of having options that have already been assessed rather than attempting to create them during a crisis.
For businesses connecting Asian suppliers with customers across the Gulf and Africa, this makes the quality of the regional logistics network increasingly important. Ports, feeder services, transshipment hubs, customs procedures and inland transport all influence whether a corridor can absorb changes in demand.
Nominal connectivity is not the same as usable connectivity
This distinction may be the most important one for companies entering new South-South markets. A route can exist on a carrier schedule and still be difficult to operate consistently without local knowledge. Usable connectivity means knowing which carrier can realistically provide the next sailing, which transshipment hub performs reliably for a particular cargo, how predictable destination customs clearance is and what inland alternatives exist when the original plan encounters a problem.
Those answers can change according to season, cargo type, congestion and local operating conditions. A logistics provider that has repeatedly moved freight along a corridor is therefore likely to have a much more practical understanding of its limitations than a shipper choosing a route based solely on published schedules. Experience builds knowledge around the exceptions: which terminals handle a particular commodity efficiently, where documentation tends to cause delays, which alternative routes can be activated and where additional inventory may be justified.
That knowledge becomes particularly valuable when a supply chain extends across several developing markets.
What South-South trade means for freight planning
The growth of South-South trade does not mean established Asia-Europe and transpacific routes are being replaced. Those corridors remain fundamental to global commerce.
What is changing is the number of commercially important connections around them. An Asian manufacturer may now supply customers across Southeast Asia, Africa and the Gulf while continuing to serve Europe and North America. A company sourcing from China may use regional suppliers in Vietnam or Thailand before distributing finished products into several emerging markets. A Gulf-based distributor may serve customers across Africa and South Asia from a regional inventory position.
Each model creates different requirements for transport, customs, warehousing and inventory positioning. The logistics strategy therefore needs to begin with the actual corridor rather than a generic regional assumption. Understanding the cargo, service requirement, transport options, infrastructure and customs environment provides a more reliable basis for route selection.
Contingency planning also becomes more practical when it is done before disruption occurs. A secondary port is only useful if it has been assessed. An alternative carrier is only valuable if capacity can be secured. A warehouse only provides resilience if it can receive, store and release the relevant cargo under the required conditions.
The next layer of global freight infrastructure
South-South trade has grown from a relatively small component of global commerce into one of its major sources of expansion. UNCTAD’s latest figures show total South-South merchandise trade at approximately $7.2 trillion in 2025, while its early-2026 analysis continues to highlight the central role of East Asian developing economies in driving these flows.
The logistics infrastructure supporting this trade is developing at different speeds. Some corridors have already attracted the investment required to support reliable, high-frequency freight movements. Others are still building the ports, inland connections, customs systems and service networks needed to support growing demand.
That difference is where much of the operational complexity lies. The future of global trade is unlikely to be defined by a simple shift from one set of routes to another. Established Asia-Europe and transpacific corridors will continue to carry enormous volumes, while new connections between Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America add another layer to the network.
For businesses expanding across these markets, the important question is whether it can deliver the consistency, visibility and flexibility that the supply chain requires. The value of experienced logistics operators will lie in understanding the difference between connectivity on paper and connectivity that works reliably when the cargo is moving.