By Maria Mavroudi*
On 29 July 2026, the Joint War Committee (JWC) published the latest edition of the Joint War Listed Areas (JWLA-034), replacing JWLA-033 and triggering the customary 72-hour notice period under London market War Risks policies.
Although the latest amendments are relatively limited in geographical scope, they reflect the Committee’s continued monitoring of geopolitical developments. Among the principal changes are an adjustment to the northern boundary of the Gulf of Aden Listed Area, amendments to the definition of the Saudi Arabian Listed Area and, notably, the removal of Pakistan from the Listed Areas.
For shipowners, charterers and their financiers, however, the publication of a new JWLA circular is far more than a geographical update. Inclusion within a Listed Area can influence insurance costs, charterparty obligations, financing requirements and, ultimately, the commercial viability of a voyage.
Yet the latest update also raises a broader question:
Can maritime war risk still be assessed primarily by reference to a map?
More than a geographical exercise
The Joint War Listed Areas remain one of the marine insurance market’s most important underwriting tools. They identify regions where underwriters require prior notification before a vessel enters and where Additional Premiums or special trading conditions may apply.
However, the Listed Areas have never been intended to define the precise limits of risk. They provide the framework for underwriting decisions, but those decisions have always depended on the prevailing operational and geopolitical environment. Today, that distinction has become more important than ever.
A market shaped by recent events
During the brief period of relative stability following the temporary reduction in hostilities in Ukraine, underwriting conditions had begun to improve and market confidence was gradually returning. That trend has reversed dramatically.
Over the past few weeks, commercial shipping has once again found itself at the center of escalating geopolitical tensions. In the Black Sea, merchant vessels and port infrastructure have suffered repeated attacks, with ships damaged, commercial vessels lost and civilian seafarers killed. At the same time, heightened tensions in the wider Middle East—including around the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait—have prompted shipowners, charterers and insurers to reassess operational risks, voyage planning and contingency measures. Recent threats by the Houthis to intensify efforts to disrupt commercial shipping in the Red Sea have further heightened concerns over one of the world’s most important maritime trade corridors. Today’s reported drone attacks on two gas vessels in Egyptian waters near the Port of Damietta, close to the Suez Canal, provide a further reminder that maritime security threats continue to evolve rapidly, reinforcing insurers’ focus on dynamic operational risk rather than geographical boundaries alone.
Every significant incident becomes part of the underwriting assessment. As attacks become more frequent and unpredictable, insurers reassess not only pricing but also their willingness to deploy capacity. The result is a market in which war risks are increasingly evaluated on real-time operational intelligence rather than geographical boundaries alone.
Novorossiysk: a changing perception of risk
Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this changing approach is Novorossiysk.
For much of the conflict, Russian Black Sea ports were generally regarded as presenting a lower risk than Ukrainian ports. Recent attacks, however, have prompted many insurers to reassess that assumption.
While underwriting appetite naturally differs between markets, there are increasing reports of insurers requesting more detailed operational information before offering terms, increasing Additional Premiums or reducing capacity depending on the specific characteristics of each voyage. This illustrates how quickly underwriting perceptions can change when operational realities evolve.
The cost of war risk
The market’s changing perception of risk is reflected not only in underwriting appetite but also in the cost of insurance.
Only a few weeks ago, Additional Premiums for calls at Novorossiysk were commonly quoted at around 0.20% of the insured value. Following the recent escalation in attacks in the Black Sea, market indications suggest that premiums have increased sharply, with many placements now attracting rates in the region of 1.0% to 1.5%, while particularly exposed voyages may command even higher premiums depending on the vessel, cargo, ownership profile and the prevailing security environment. For a modern tanker or bulk carrier, this may translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional insurance costs for a single voyage.
More importantly, however, capacity has become increasingly selective. Today’s underwriters are assessing the complete operational profile of a voyage, including the intended trading pattern, cargo, ownership, duration within exposed waters and the latest intelligence available. The question is no longer simply whether a vessel is entering a Listed Area, but whether the overall exposure justifies deploying capacity at all.
Beyond the Listed Areas
Despite the continuing hostilities, Ukrainian ports continue to operate through the maritime corridor established after the suspension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Yet being operational does not necessarily equate to an acceptable level of risk.
This illustrates an important point.
The highest operational risk is no longer always confined within the geographical boundaries of the Joint War Listed Areas. Commercial vessels may now face military activity, navigation disruption or collateral damage well beyond what has traditionally been regarded as the highest-risk zone.
The Listed Areas therefore remain an indispensable underwriting framework, but increasingly they should be viewed as the starting point for risk assessment rather than its conclusion.
Keeping global trade moving
Beyond underwriting considerations, it is important to remember that commercial shipping remains a civilian activity. Merchant vessels trading through conflict-affected regions transport grain, energy, fertilizers and countless other commodities that underpin the global economy and the continuity of international supply chains.
Equally important, the seafarers serving on board these vessels are civilians performing an essential role in world trade and should never become targets of armed conflict. Protecting both the continuity of maritime commerce and the safety of those at sea must remain a shared priority for governments, industry and insurers alike.
Looking ahead
The publication of JWLA-034 is a timely reminder that maritime risk continues to evolve, but perhaps even more importantly, that the insurance market is evolving alongside it.
The Joint War Listed Areas remain an essential underwriting tool. Yet today’s market increasingly relies on real-time intelligence, operational realities and continuous monitoring of geopolitical developments.
The map remains indispensable, but it no longer tells the whole story. As recent events in both the Black Sea and the wider Middle East continue to demonstrate, maritime war risk is increasingly defined by events as they unfold rather than by geographical boundaries alone. Understanding that distinction has become one of the most important responsibilities shared by shipowners, charterers, brokers and insurers alike.
About the Author*
Maria Mavroudi is Founding Partner of Searock Marine Insurance Brokers, specializing in marine insurance and risk management for the international shipping industry.
As geopolitical risks continue to evolve, Searock Marine Insurance Brokers remains at the disposal of shipowners, charterers, financiers and all maritime stakeholders to provide guidance on War Risks insurance, Additional Premiums, sanctions-related considerations and voyage risk assessments, helping clients navigate an increasingly complex and rapidly changing risk environment
