Building Successful P&I Insurance In Emerging Markets: Lessons From China And Korea

In global shipping, power is often measured in fleets, ports, and cargo volume. But the true determinant of maritime sovereignty lies elsewhere, in the quieter realm of insurance. A nation may move millions of tonnes of cargo, police its waters, and operate modern terminals, but still depend on foreign institutions to price its risk, settle its claims, and define its liabilities. That is the contradiction at the heart of most emerging maritime economies—physical control without financial control.

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) insurance is not merely a compliance requirement. It is the financial architecture that sustains global shipping. It determines who pays when a tanker spills crude, when a container vessel collides in port, or when a crew member is injured offshore. Where that insurance is domiciled determines where premiums accumulate, where disputes are settled, and whose legal and actuarial standards shape global norms.

In most emerging markets, that jurisdiction is somewhere else, usually where a member of the international group of P & I mutual associations is domiciled. The result is a one-way flow of premiums, expertise, and authority. The vessels may load in Lagos or Luanda, but the liabilities are still priced and resolved elsewhere. This is not a gap in capability; it is a gap in design.

Many developing maritime nations make the same error: they assume shipping scale will naturally create insurance scale, or they legislate localisation without establishing the institutions to support it. The result is predictable. Ports expand, vessels multiply, and logistics clusters grow, yet liability continues to flow outward. The missing ingredient is not demand; it is institutional architecture.

How China and Korea Built Domestic P&I Capacity

China recognised this imbalance early. Its emergence as a maritime power did not begin with cargo volume but with the decision to retain financial sovereignty over maritime liability. In 1984, the China Shipowners Mutual Assurance Association (now the China P&I Club) was founded not because China already had underwriting depth, but because it understood that depth would never develop unless a domestic structure existed to require it.

China treated marine insurance as part of industrial policy, not a standalone financial activity. Shipbuilding, port management, ship finance, and marine insurance were integrated under a single strategic ambition. The government permitted foreign reinsurance while ensuring capital, claims adjudication, and actuarial development stayed within Chinese jurisdiction. Importantly, it created the legal flexibility to recognise mutual structures in law before market scale followed.

Four decades later, China's P&I Club underwrites more than 2,000 vessels with over 97 million gross tonnes entered, demonstrating what deliberate policy coordination can achieve. By embedding insurance into the nation's maritime ecosystem, China captured premiums that once flowed abroad, developed domestic claims expertise, and earned a seat in international marine underwriting circles once dominated by Europe.

South Korea followed a similar path, though with a distinct state–industry partnership. The Korea P&I Club (KP&I) was established in 2000 with the backing of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, national lenders, and shipowners. Recognising that no private insurer would initially bear the risk of competing with century-old European clubs, the government underwrote the early years of the club's operations.

That approach paid off. Within two decades, KP&I built credibility, accumulated reserves that would otherwise have left Korean banks, and established itself as a key player representing Korea in global marine insurance forums. While smaller in scale than European clubs, it remains a national success story, proof that early state involvement can catalyse private-sector maturity.

Neither China nor Korea waited for market readiness. They built institutions that forced the market to mature. They did not imitate the European models; they adapted them. They did not ask whether the market was ready; they asked whether their nations could afford dependence.

Nigeria's Path from Maritime Scale to Risk Leadership

Nigeria stands today at a similar crossroads. It is West Africa's maritime powerhouse, handling over two-thirds of the region's cargo throughput and anchoring one of the world's densest offshore oil logistics corridors. With ports in Apapa, Tin Can Island, Onne, Warri, and Calabar, the country moves enormous volumes of oil, gas, and containerised cargo across its 850-kilometre coastline.

It also possesses a strong legal foundation. The Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development (NOGICD) Act of 2010 mandates that operators in the oil and gas sector insure all insurable risks locally, with NAICOM's written approval required before any placement offshore. On paper, this provides a powerful framework for localisation. In practice, however, most P&I coverage, particularly for offshore and high-liability categories, remains placed abroad. Local brokers may intermediate, but brokerage is not localisation. True localisation keeps reserves in-country, builds underwriting capacity, and ensures claims are resolved under domestic law.

The Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act (NIIRA 2025) strengthened capital standards and licensing oversight across the sector, but it inadvertently created a paradox. By restricting insurers to limited liability corporate entities, NIIRA excluded mutual structures like those on which every major P&I club is built. As a result, Nigeria's most modern insurance law currently provides no legal framework for a domestic P&I mutual to exist. The contradiction is striking: the country has the traffic, the vessels, the policy intent, but not the legal form required to capture its own maritime liability.

To correct this, Nigeria will need a dedicated legislative instrument, perhaps a Marine Mutuals and Liability Act and regulatory framework to recognise and ring-fence mutuals as distinct legal entities within the insurance ecosystem. Such a law could permit state–industry co-capitalisation in the formative years, as Korea once did, ensuring stability while domestic actuarial and claims expertise develops. Without this, localisation will remain an aspiration rather than a financial reality.

Regional Integration and the Opportunity Ahead

A Nigerian P&I mutual would not serve only vessels operating in Nigeria's territorial waters. The ECOWAS Brown Card Scheme already proves that cross-border liability pooling works in West Africa. Under the Brown Card, motorists are covered for third-party liabilities when travelling across ECOWAS states, with claims processed under local laws. The same principle, shared legal recognition and harmonised claims processing, could underpin a regional marine mutual. A Nigerian-anchored P&I platform could provide coverage and settlement services for vessels operating across neighbouring countries, positioning Nigeria as the central risk hub of the subregion.

Overlaying this regional framework is the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which unites 1.4 billion people across 55 countries with a combined GDP exceeding US$3.4 trillion. The agreement is projected to increase intra-African trade significantly, with UNCTAD estimating that maritime freight demand alone could rise by over 60% percent in the coming years. Nigeria, already Africa's largest maritime economy, is strategically placed to benefit if it can anchor the financial backbone that underwrites that growth.

A Nigerian-led P&I mutual could therefore serve dual purposes: consolidating domestic control over maritime risk and providing regional cover for emerging African shipping corridors. It would retain premiums within African banks, train a new generation of marine lawyers and claims adjusters, and allow disputes to be adjudicated under Nigerian jurisdiction. It would also enable the country to influence international pricing, reinsurance structures, and liability frameworks from a position of institutional strength.

From Maritime Volume to Maritime Authority

China and Korea did not build P&I clubs because they already had scale. They built them because they recognised that no nation can sustain maritime power while outsourcing its liability architecture. Nigeria now faces the same question. It already carries the cargo and regulates the waters; what it does not yet control is the framework that decides who pays when things go wrong, and where those payments are determined.

A Nigerian P&I mutual would not isolate the country from global systems. It would allow Nigeria to participate in them on more equitable terms, as a contributor to global norms, not a dependent observer. It would ensure that the wealth generated by its shipping and offshore industries circulates within its financial institutions, reinforcing both sovereignty and stability.

The ships already exist. The policy is in place. What remains is the architecture of risk that completes Nigeria's sovereignty at sea.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.