By Andy Wang     Photo：CANVA

Most shippers first notice “multimodal transport” on a quotation: ocean plus trucking, air plus trucking, ocean plus rail plus trucking. It looks intuitive, because cross-border delivery is always made of segments.

Where things go wrong is rarely the mix of modes. The real problem is the assumption that someone will take end-to-end responsibility, while the actual move is split into multiple contracts, each party covering only its own leg. When delays, damage, or charge disputes happen, the situation turns into a slow chase for a simple answer: who is accountable, and accountable up to which delivery point.

That is the real value of understanding multimodal transport. It helps make delivery outcomes more controllable, instead of hoping everything “should be fine.”

1. One Sentence to Get It: The Core of Multimodal Transport Is One Contract

Here is the simplest way to define it in practice:

Multimodal transport is not defined by how many modes are used. It is defined by whether at least two different modes are carried under a single transport contract, with one principal party arranging the movement and taking responsibility for the overall carriage.

That principal party is commonly called the MTO (Multimodal Transport Operator). The key point is that MTO is a role, not a company type. In a given shipment, the MTO is the party that contracts with you for the overall carriage and stands in the position of end-to-end liability.

One context point that matters in real disputes: the 1980 UN Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods has not entered into force, so operational liability questions often fall back to contract terms, mandatory local law, and the transport document regime used.

2. Terms That Matter: What UNCTAD/ICC Rules and FIATA FBL Actually Do

UNCTAD/ICC Rules (UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents)

In practice, this is the rule set people refer to when a set of contractual rules developed by UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The point to remember is contractual: these rules are not mandatory law by themselves, but once they are incorporated into a contract or a document regime, they help frame how multimodal documents work and how MTO responsibility is structured.

FIATA FBL (FIATA Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading)

FIATA is the International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations. The FIATA FBL is formally the FIATA Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading, a standard multimodal bill of lading designed for use by freight forwarders acting as an MTO.

A practical signal many shippers miss: once paperwork starts shifting toward a multimodal transport document like an FBL, the responsibility structure is less likely to be “each leg is separate by default.” At that point, what the document says, and who is named as the issuer, becomes decisive.

3. Why freight forwarders and MTO are often discussed together

“Freight forwarder” is a business label. MTO is a shipment role. They show up together because, depending on how a shipment is contracted and documented, a forwarder may operate in two very different ways.

Agent style (arranging capacity)
The forwarder books ocean or air capacity, coordinates rail or trucking, and helps move documents along. Each segment may still have its own carrier and its own liability boundary. It can work well, but responsibility is naturally segmented, and claim handling often becomes a multi-party chase.

Principal style (taking end-to-end responsibility)
In some shipments, the forwarder issues a multimodal transport document in its own name and takes on the obligations of the overall carriage. That is when the forwarder is functioning as, or very close to, an MTO role in practice.

So the practical takeaway is simple: a forwarder is not automatically an MTO, but under certain commercial arrangements and document forms, the forwarder may be the party standing in the end-to-end liability position.

4. Three mistakes shippers repeat again and again

1) Multiple modes automatically means “multimodal transport.”
Not necessarily. If ocean is under one contract and inland trucking is under another, you are dealing with a combination of segmented transport, even if the route looks like “one plan.”

2) A bundled quote means bundled liability.
A “door-to-door” price can be a commercial packaging choice. It does not automatically mean legal responsibility is consolidated. Liability follows the contract and the transport document, not the formatting of a quotation.

3) The handover point is left vague, then everyone guesses later.
The most expensive ambiguity is often one sentence: “deliver to the warehouse.”
Arrive at gate, deliver to dock, unloading completed, appointment secured, delivery accepted by a named receiver. These are not wording details. They decide cost exposure and claim friction.

5. A decision frame that makes multimodal transport usable

If the goal is to help a non-specialist shipper make better decisions, these four questions do most of the heavy lifting:

• Where is the delivery endpoint, exactly
Port area, terminal, third-party warehouse, customer site, inside the premises. Make it explicit.

• Is the overall movement covered by one contract
If yes, you are managing end-to-end responsibility. If not, you are managing segmented responsibility. The playbook is different.

• Who is the end-to-end responsible party
Is it an MTO, a carrier, or does responsibility remain split by leg. This determines how fast exceptions are handled and how claims are built.

• Which handover points require your inputs to be complete
Focus on the information that prevents on-site mismatch: loading and unloading conditions, time windows, cargo characteristics, access constraints, appointment requirements, and proof-of-delivery expectations.

Closing

Multimodal transport is not about making transport more complex. It is about forcing the most failure-prone parts of cross-border delivery to become explicit and manageable.

Once three things are clear, multimodal transport starts doing its job:
who is accountable end to end, where the delivery point truly ends, and which document regime defines responsibility and evidence.

Get those right, and the shipment becomes less about “hoping it works,” and more about controlling outcomes.

Further reading (more in this series)
• Part 2: How to read multimodal documents. The title and purpose often determine how smoothly things go later.
• Part 3: When something goes wrong. Who to file the claim against, how to identify the liability holder, and how to preserve the evidence trail.
• Part 4: How to compare quotations and align assumptions at every handover point.
• Wrap-up: Turn all four parts into a quoting and decision checklist you can use with your forwarder.

Appreciate if you could share TGL Blog among your friends who are interested in first-hand market information of supply chain and updated economic incidents.