The Container Port Performance Index 2023 A Comparable Assessment of Performance Based on Vessel Time in Port © 2024 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank, together with external contributions from S&P Global Market Intelligence. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo.+ Under the Creative Commons Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial purposes, under the following conditions: Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: The World Bank, 2024. “The Container Port Performance Index 2023: A Comparable Assessment of Performance based on Vessel Time in Port.” World Bank, Washington, DC. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO. Translations—If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation. Adaptations—If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank. Third-party content—The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank, therefore, does not warrant that the use of any third party-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. If you wish to reuse a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. TRANSPORT GLOBAL PRACTICE The Container Port Performance Index 2023 A Comparable Assessment of Performance based on Vessel Time in Port Table of contents Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................................iii Abbreviations and Acronyms...................................................................................................................................iv Glossary........................................................................................................................................................................v Foreword.....................................................................................................................................................................vi Executive summary..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................9 2. The Port Performance Program......................................................................................................................... 13 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................................13 The Port Performance Program..........................................................................................................................................14 The Automatic Identification System and Port Zoning.................................................................................................14 The Anatomy of a Port Call..................................................................................................................................................15 Overall Port Time Distribution............................................................................................................................................. 17 The Significance of Call Size..............................................................................................................................................20 3. The Approach and Methodology...................................................................................................................... 25 The Structure of the Data....................................................................................................................................................25 Constructing the Index: The Administrative Approach...............................................................................................29 Why Is Matrix Factorization Useful?..................................................................................................................................34 The Statistical Methodology...............................................................................................................................................35 Borda-Type Approach for Index Aggregation...............................................................................................................36 4. The Container Port Performance Index 2023................................................................................................. 38 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................38 The CPPI 2023.......................................................................................................................................................................38 Ranking by Region................................................................................................................................................................40 Ranking by Throughput.......................................................................................................................................................48 5. Conclusions and Next Steps.............................................................................................................................. 55 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023................................................................................................................................... 56 i | Table of contents Tables Table E.1 • The CPPI 2023: Global Ranking of Container Ports...........................................................................2 Table 2.1 • Average Arrival Time Development per Region and Ship Size, 2022–2023...............................19 Table 2.2 • Average Arrival Time Performance per Ship Size Range per Region.......................................... 20 Table 3.1 • Port Calls Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 27 Table 3.2 • Ship Size Group Definitions............................................................................................................... 27 Table 3.3 • Call Size Sensitivity.............................................................................................................................. 28 Table 3.4 • Quantity of Ports Included per Ship Size Group............................................................................. 29 Table 3.5 • An Example of Imputing Missing Values.......................................................................................... 30 Table 3.6 • Port Hours Performance Appraisal....................................................................................................31 Table 3.7 • Assumptions to Determine a Fuel Consumption Index................................................................. 32 Table 3.8 • Sample Port Productivity Data Structure by Ship Size.................................................................. 34 Table 3.9 • Sample Illustration of Latent Factors................................................................................................ 34 An Example of Aggregated Rankings for Four Ports with Randomly Generated Table 3.10 •  Administrative and Statistical Index Values................................................................................... 36 Table 4.1 • The CPPI 2023....................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 4.2 • The CPPI by Region: North America.................................................................................................. 41 Table 4.3 • The CPPI by Region: Central America, South America, and the Caribbean Region.................. 41 Table 4.4 • The CPPI by Region: West, Central, and South Asia (Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh)................. 43 Table 4.5 • The CPPI by Region: East Asia (Myanmar to Japan)...................................................................... 44 Table 4.6 • The CPPI by Region: Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands)...................... 45 Table 4.7 • The CPPI by Region: Sub-Saharan Africa......................................................................................... 45 Table 4.8 • The CPPI by Region: Europe and North Africa................................................................................ 46 Table 4.9 • The CPPI by Throughput: Large Ports (More than 4 million TEUs per Year).............................. 49 Table 4.10 • The CPPI by Throughput: Medium Ports (between 0.5 million and 4 million TEUs per Year)...... 49 Table 4.11 • The CPPI by Throughput: Small Ports (Less than 0.5 million TEUs per Year)........................... 52 Table A.1 • Aggregated Rankings Using Borda-type Approach....................................................................... 56 Table A.2 • The CPPI 2023 (the Administrative Approach)................................................................................ 61 Table A.3 • The CPPI 2023 (the Statistical Approach)....................................................................................... 72 Figures Figure 2.1 • The Anatomy of a Port Call.................................................................................................................16 Figure 2.2 • In-Port Time Consumption................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 2.3 • Global Average Arrival Time Development 2022-2023................................................................18 Figure 2.4 • The Aggregated Correlation between Ship and Call Size............................................................21 Figure 2.5 • Container Moves Performed per gross Crane Hour across Various Ship Sizes...................... 22 Figure 2.6 • Gross Crane Productivity by Call Size............................................................................................ 22 Figure 2.7 • Crane Productivity by Crane Intensity............................................................................................ 23 Figure 2.8 • Call Size versus Crane Intensity...................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2.9 • Average Moves per Crane................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 3.1 • The Structure of the CPPI.................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 3.2 • Percentage of Port Calls per Ship Size Group - 2023.................................................................. 28 Table of contents | ii Acknowledgements This technical report was prepared jointly by the teams from the Transport Global Practice of the Infrastructure Vice-Presidency at the World Bank and the Maritime, Trade and Supply Chain division of S&P Global Market Intelligence. The World Bank team was led by Richard Martin Humphreys (Global Lead for Connectivity and Logistics and Lead Transport Economist, ITRGK), Dominique Guillot (Associate Professor, University of Delaware), under the guidance of Binyam Reja (Global Practice Manager Transport, ITRGK) and Nicolas Peltier-Thiberge (Global Practice Director Transport, ITRGK). The S&P Global Market Intelligence team was led by Turloch Mooney (Global Head of Port Intelligence & Analytics, GIA), under the guidance of Guy Sear (Head of Global Risk & Maritime, GIA) and Jenny Paurys (Head of Global Intelligence & Analytics). The joint team would like to extend special thanks to the following experts for their comments on the draft of the technical report: Gylfi Palsson (Lead Transport Specialist, ILTC1), Ninan Biju Oommen (Senior Transport Specialist, IEAT1), and Yin Yin Lam (Senior Transport Specialist, IEAT1). iii | Acknowledgements Abbreviations and Acronyms Acronyms Description AIS Automatic Identification System CI Crane Intensity COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 CPPI Container Port Performance Index EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone FA Factor Analysis GCI Global Competitiveness Index GCMPH Moves per Gross Crane Hour GDP Gross Domestic Product GRT Gross Registered Tonnage ITU International Telecommunication Union LLDC Landlocked Developing Country LPI Logistics Performance Index SIDS Small Island Developing States TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Abbreviations and Acronyms | iv Glossary All fast: The point when the vessel is fully gearboxes, and other non-container related secured at berth and all mooring lines are fast crane work. Breakbulk cargo lifts are excluded, however empty platform (tweendeck or flat-rack) Arrival time/hours: The total elapsed time handling moves are included. between the vessel’s automatic identification system (AIS) recorded arrival at the actual port Moves per crane: Total Moves for a call divided limit or anchorage (whichever recorded time is by the crane intensity the earlier) and its all lines fast at the berth Port call: A call to a container port/terminal by Berth hours: The time between all lines fast and a container vessel where at least one container all lines released was discharged or loaded Berth idle: The time spent on berth without ongoing Port hours: The number of hours a ship spends cargo operations. The accumulated time between all at/ in port, from arrival at the port limits to sailing fast to first move plus last move to all lines released from the berth Call size: The number of container moves per Port limits: Either an anchorage zone or the location call, inclusive of discharge, load, and restowage where pilot embarkation or disembarkation occurs and recorded as whichever activity is the earliest Cargo operations: When cargo is being exchanged, the time between first and last container moves Port to berth hours: The time from when a ship first arrived at the port limits or anchorage zone Crane intensity (CI): The quantity of cranes (whichever activity occurs first) until it is all fast deployed to a ship’s berth call. Calculated as alongside the berth. total accumulated gross crane hours divided by operating (first to last move) hours Relay transshipment: Containers transshipped between ocean going container ships Factor analysis (FA): A statistical method used to describe variability among observed, correlated Ship size: Nominal capacity in twenty-foot variables in terms of a potentially lower number equivalent units (“TEU’s”) of unobserved variables called factors Start: The time elapsed from berthing (all lines Finish: Total elapsed time between last container fast) to first container move move and all lines released Steam in time: The time required to steam-in from Gross crane hours: Aggregated total working the port limits and until all fast alongside the berth time for all cranes deployed to a vessel call without any deductions. Time includes Twenty-foot equivalent unit or TEU: A standard breakdowns, inclement weather, vessel inspired metric for container throughput, and the physical delays, un/lashing, gantry, boom down/up plus capacity of a container terminal. A 20-foot hatch cover and gear-box handling container is equal to 1 TEU, and a 40-foot or 45- foot container is equal to 2 TEUs. Regardless of Gross crane productivity (GCMPH): Call size or container size (10 feet, 15 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 total moves divided by total gross crane hours. feet, or 45 feet), each is recorded as one move when being loaded or discharged from the vessel. Hub port: A port which is called at by deep- sea mainline container ships and serves as a Vessel capacity: Nominal capacity in twenty-foot transshipment point for smaller outlying, or feeder, equivalent Units (“TEU’s”) ports within its geographical region. Typically, more than 35 percent of its total throughput would be hub Waiting time: Total elapsed time from when vessel and spoke or relay transshipment container activity enters anchorage zone to when vessel departs anchorage zone (vessel speed must have dropped Moves: Total container moves. Discharge + below 0.5 knots for at least 15 mins within the zone) restowage moves + load. Excluding hatch covers, v | Glossary Foreword The challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath on the sector eased further in 2023. Continuing or new disruptions in the form of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the attacks on shipping in the Gulf of Aden, and draught restrictions on the Panama Canal, all impacted container shipping. In addition, the glut of new capacity ordered by lines during the pandemic and falling demand meant that freight rates have fallen, after an initial slump, to pre-pandemic norms on most routes. These changes impact performance and the ranking of ports. While some problems are exogenous or systemic, some are endogenous or location specific, with the result that both impact the performance and ranking of individual ports. One of the ‘silver linings’ of the pandemic was greater awareness and focus on the resilience and efficiency of the maritime gateways, where any friction will result in tangible impacts on consumer choice, price, and ultimately economic development. That focus is even more important now. Traditionally, one of the major challenges to stimulating improvement in the efficiency of ports has historically been the lack of a reliable, consistent, and comparable basis on which to compare operational performance across different ports. While modern ports collect data for performance purposes, the quality, consistency, and availability of data, the definitions employed, and the capacity and willingness of the organizations to collect and transmit data to a collating body have all precluded the development of a robust comparable measure(s) to assess performance across ports and time. The introduction of new technologies, increased digitalization, and the willingness on the part of industry stakeholders to work collectively toward systemwide improvements have now provided the opportunity to measure and compare container port performance in a robust and reliable manner. A partnership has resulted in this technical report, which is the fourth iteration of the Container Port Performance Index (CPPI), produced by the Transport Global Practice of the World Bank in collaboration with the Global Intelligence & Analytics division of S&P Global Market Intelligence. The CPPI is intended, as in its earlier iterations, to serve as a reference point for improvement for key stakeholders in the global economy, including national governments, port authorities and operators, development agencies, supranational organizations, various maritime interests, and other public and private stakeholders in trade, logistics, and supply chain services. The performance of a port may be assessed based on a myriad of measurements, such as: terminal capacity or space utilization, cost, landside connectivity & services, or ship to shore interchange. The CPPI is based on available empirical objective data pertaining exclusively to time expended in a vessel stay in a port and should be interpreted as an indicative measure of container port performance, but not a definitive one. Nicolas Peltier-Thiberge Jenny Paurys Global Practice Director Head of Global Intelligence & Transport Analytics S&P Global Market The World Bank Intelligence Foreword | vi Executive summary Maritime transport forms the foundation of global trade and the manufacturing supply chain. The maritime industry provides the most cost-effective, energy-efficient, and dependable mode of transportation for long distances. More than 80 percent of global merchandise trade (by volume) is transported via sea routes. A considerable and increasing proportion of this volume, accounting for about 35 percent of total volumes and over 60 percent of commercial value, is carried in containers. The emergence of containerization brought about significant changes in how and where goods are manufactured and processed, a trend that is likely to continue with digitalization. Container ports are critical nodes in global supply chains and essential to the growth strategies of many emerging economies. In numerous cases, the development of high-quality container port infrastructure operating efficiently has been a prerequisite for successful export-led growth strategies. Countries that follow such a strategy will have higher levels of economic growth than those that do not. Efficient, high quality port infrastructure can facilitate investment in production and distribution systems, engender expansion of manufacturing and logistics, create employment opportunities, and raise income levels. However, ports and terminals, especially container terminals, can cause shipment delays, disruptions in supply chain, additional expenses, and reduced competitiveness. The negative effect of poor performance in a port can extend beyond the that port’s hinterland to others as container shipping services follow a fixed schedule with specific berth windows at each port of call on the route. Therefore, poor performance at one port could disrupt the entire schedule. This, in turn, increases the cost of imports and exports, reduces the competitiveness of the country and its hinterland, and hinders economic growth and poverty reduction. The consequences are particularly significant for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS). Comparing operational performance across ports has been a major challenge for improving global value chains due to the lack of a reliable, consistent, and comparable basis. Despite the data collected by modern ports for performance purposes, the quality, consistency, and availability of data, as well as the definitions used and the capacity and willingness of organizations to transmit data to a collating body, have hindered the development of a comparable measure(s) for assessing performance across ports and time. However, new technologies, increased digitalization, and industry interests’ willingness to work collectively toward systemwide improvements now provide an opportunity to measure and compare container port performance in a robust and reliable manner. The World Bank’s Transport Global Practice and the Global Intelligence & Analytics division of S&P Global Market Intelligence have collaborated to produce the fourth edition of the Container Port Performance Index (CPPI), presented in this technical paper. The aim of the CPPI is to pinpoint areas for enhancement that can ultimately benefit all parties involved, ranging from shipping lines to national governments and consumers. It is designed to act as a point of reference for important stakeholders in the global economy, including port authorities and operators, national governments, supranational organizations, development agencies, various maritime interests, and other public and private stakeholders in trade, logistics, and supply chain services. The development of the CPPI rests on total container ship in port time in the manner explained in subsequent sections of the report, and as in earlier iterations of the CPPI. This fourth iteration utilizes data for the full calendar year of 2023. It continues the change introduced last year of only including 1 | Executive summary ports that had a minimum of 24 valid port calls within the 12-month period of the study. The number of ports included in the CPPI 2023 is 405. As in earlier iterations of the CPPI, the production of the ranking employs two different methodological approaches, an administrative, or technical, approach, a pragmatic methodology reflecting expert knowledge and judgment; and a statistical approach, using factor analysis (FA), or more accurately matrix factorization. The rationale for using two approaches was to try and ensure that the ranking of container port performance reflects as closely as possible actual port performance, whilst also being statistically robust. As there had been a marked improvement in consistency between the rankings resulting from the two approaches since the inaugural CPPI 2020, for CPPI 2023, the same two methodological approaches were used. In addition, the rank aggregation method is employed again to combine the results and return one aggregate ranking. The construction of the statistical and administrative approaches, the aggregation methodology and the resulting ranking is detailed in the report, while the respective rankings of the former are detailed in Appendix A. Table E.1 presents the resulting CPPI 2023. The top-ranked container ports in the CPPI 2023 are Yangshan Port (China) in first place, followed by the Port of Salalah (Oman) in second place, retaining their ranking from the CPPI 2022. Third place in the CPPI 2023 is occupied by the port of Cartagena, up from 5th place in the CPPI 2022, whilst Tangier- Mediterranean retains its 4th place ranking. Tanjung Pelepas improved one position to 5th, Ningbo moved up from 12th in 2022 to 7th in 2023, and Port Said moved from 16th to 10th in 2023. Ports moving in the other direction in the top ten: Khalifa port falls from 3rd position in 2022 to 29th position in CPPI 2023. Hamad Port which fell from 8th in 2022 to 11th in 2023. TABLE E.1 • The CPPI 2023: Global Ranking of Container Ports Port Name Overall Ranking Port Name Overall Ranking YANGSHAN 1 VISAKHAPATNAM 19 SALALAH 2 YEOSU 20 CARTAGENA (COLOMBIA) 3 TIANJIN 21 TANGER-MEDITERRANEAN 4 YANTIAN 22 TANJUNG PELEPAS 5 TANJUNG PRIOK 23 CHIWAN 6 LIANYUNGANG 24 CAI MEP 7 SHEKOU 25 GUANGZHOU 8 CALLAO 26 YOKOHAMA 9 MUNDRA 27 ALGECIRAS 10 PORT KLANG 28 HAMAD PORT 11 KHALIFA PORT 29 NINGBO 12 KING ABDULLAH PORT 30 MAWAN 13 XIAMEN 31 DALIAN 14 BUSAN 32 HONG KONG 15 GEMLIK 33 PORT SAID 16 BARCELONA 34 SINGAPORE 17 DAMMAM 35 KAOHSIUNG 18 SAVONA-VADO 36 Executive summary | 2 Port Name Overall Ranking Port Name Overall Ranking POSORJA 37 PUERTO LIMON 79 FUZHOU 38 CHENNAI 80 ZEEBRUGGE 39 WILMINGTON (USA-N CAROLINA) 81 COLOMBO 40 MARSAXLOKK 82 PIPAVAV 41 ZHOUSHAN 83 RIO DE JANEIRO 42 SOUTHAMPTON 84 KHALIFA BIN SALMAN 43 OSAKA 85 BUENAVENTURA 44 HAIFA 86 LAEM CHABANG 45 AQABA 87 SHIMIZU 46 BREMERHAVEN 88 KAMARAJAR 47 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE 89 INCHEON 48 MALAGA 90 JEBEL ALI 49 ROTTERDAM 91 LAZARO CARDENAS 50 NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY 92 AARHUS 51 JOHOR 93 DA CHAN BAY TERMINAL ONE 52 POINTE-A-PITRE 94 CHARLESTON 53 YOKKAICHI 95 TOKYO 54 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT 96 PHILADELPHIA 55 CORONEL 97 NAGOYA 56 TRIPOLI (LEBANON) 98 KATTUPALLI 57 JACKSONVILLE 99 JEDDAH 58 ALTAMIRA 100 JUBAIL 59 TANJUNG PERAK 101 QINZHOU 60 COLON 102 KARACHI 61 PARANAGUA 103 KEELUNG 62 PIRAEUS 104 COCHIN 63 OSLO 105 KOBE 64 BERBERA 106 PORT EVERGLADES 65 RIO GRANDE (BRAZIL) 107 SOHAR 66 HALIFAX 108 SALVADOR 67 TALLINN 109 HAZIRA 68 SAN ANTONIO 110 LONDON 69 CAT LAI 111 HAIPHONG 70 WELLINGTON 112 KRISHNAPATNAM 71 SHANTOU 113 WILHELMSHAVEN 72 FORT-DE-FRANCE 114 BEIRUT 73 DANANG 115 MIAMI 74 SHANGHAI 116 BOSTON (USA) 75 HAKATA 117 ANTWERP 76 IZMIR 118 DILISKELESI 77 QINGDAO 119 ITAPOA 78 SIAM SEAPORT 120 3 | Executive summary Port Name Overall Ranking Port Name Overall Ranking HAMBURG 121 HELSINGBORG 163 SOKHNA 122 PUERTO BOLIVAR (ECUADOR) 164 SHARJAH 123 SAGUNTO 165 VERACRUZ 124 MOGADISCIO 166 PUERTO BARRIOS 125 NEW ORLEANS 167 TAICHUNG 126 KOMPONG SOM 168 MOJI 127 BAR 169 VIGO 128 SANTO TOMAS DE CASTILLA 170 YARIMCA 129 DUNKIRK 171 NAHA 130 ALEXANDRIA (EGYPT) 172 PORT AKDENIZ 131 MOBILE 173 SAIGON 132 TARRAGONA 174 BATANGAS 133 PUERTO PROGRESO 175 LISBON 134 PAPEETE 176 SINES 135 NORRKOPING 177 LAS PALMAS 136 PUERTO CORTES 178 SAN JUAN 137 PECEM 179 CHU LAI 138 BASSETERRE 180 KLAIPEDA 139 GUSTAVIA 181 OMAEZAKI 140 FELIXSTOWE 182 SANTA MARTA 141 GIOIA TAURO 183 VALENCIA 142 PYEONG TAEK 184 CEBU 143 ARRECIFE DE LANZAROTE 185 BORUSAN 144 PANJANG 186 SUAPE 145 GENERAL SAN MARTIN 187 MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM 146 QUY NHON 188 RIO HAINA 147 BALTIMORE (USA) 189 QUANZHOU 148 RAUMA 190 CORK 149 RAVENNA 191 TANJUNG EMAS 150 HUELVA 192 VALPARAISO 151 CAUCEDO 193 CAGAYAN DE ORO 152 MUARA 194 BARRANQUILLA 153 LA GUAIRA 195 MUUGA HARBOUR 154 LATAKIA 196 CHIBA 155 CONAKRY 197 FREDERICIA 156 COPENHAGEN 198 LIMASSOL 157 SHIBUSHI 199 AL DUQM 158 CIVITAVECCHIA 200 HIBIKINADA 159 BELL BAY 201 LIRQUEN 160 LARVIK 202 SHUAIBA 161 BRIDGETOWN 203 BURGAS 162 GIJON 204 Executive summary | 4 Port Name Overall Ranking Port Name Overall Ranking POINT LISAS PORTS 205 MARIEL 247 PLOCE 206 TRABZON 248 TARTOUS 207 GOTHENBURG 249 SHUWAIKH 208 YANGON 250 CADIZ 209 GAVLE 251 TEESPORT 210 GRANGEMOUTH 252 FERROL 211 NASSAU 253 PHILIPSBURG 212 GHAZAOUET 254 CASTELLON 213 BARI 255 HELSINKI 214 MANAUS 256 BREST 215 KOTKA 257 KRISTIANSAND 216 NOVOROSSIYSK 258 BORDEAUX 217 CALDERA (COSTA RICA) 259 SALERNO 218 BLUFF 260 PORT TAMPA BAY 219 SAINT JOHN 261 PORT AU PRINCE 220 NANTES-ST NAZAIRE 262 CASTRIES 221 BATUMI 263 OITA 222 TIMARU 264 HERAKLION 223 ZARATE 265 HONOLULU 224 PORT OF SPAIN 266 VOLOS 225 GENERAL SANTOS 267 FREETOWN 226 NELSON 268 SUBIC BAY 227 BUENOS AIRES 269 SONGKHLA 228 VENICE 270 PUERTO QUETZAL 229 BATA 271 BILBAO 230 GDYNIA 272 PARAMARIBO 231 BANGKOK 273 NGHI SON 232 TAKORADI 274 RADES 233 KUANTAN 275 APRA HARBOR 234 AMBARLI 276 NEW MANGALORE 235 RIGA 277 CRISTOBAL 236 HUENEME 278 ADEN 237 DAVAO 279 ALICANTE 238 NEMRUT BAY 280 BIG CREEK 239 KOTA KINABALU 281 VARNA 240 UMM QASR 282 PALERMO 241 SEPETIBA 283 SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT 242 SAMSUN 284 PAITA 243 NOUMEA 285 MALABO 244 ENSENADA 286 ANCONA 245 VILA DO CONDE 287 SEVILLE 246 AGADIR 288 5 | Executive summary Port Name Overall Ranking Port Name Overall Ranking PORT MORESBY 289 MANZANILLO (MEXICO) 331 LEIXOES 290 CASABLANCA 332 KUCHING 291 MEJILLONES 333 OTAGO HARBOUR 292 CHATTOGRAM 334 VLISSINGEN 293 VITORIA 335 SANTOS 294 NAPIER 336 PUERTO CABELLO 295 BRISBANE 337 LIVERPOOL (UNITED KINGDOM) 296 GREENOCK 338 CATANIA 297 NAPLES 339 GEORGETOWN (GUYANA) 298 BEIRA 340 PENANG 299 EL DEKHEILA 341 TOAMASINA 300 DURRES 342 PORT OF VIRGINIA 301 GDANSK 343 DUBLIN 302 MONROVIA 344 NAMIBE 303 ADELAIDE 345 PORT VICTORIA 304 ALGIERS 346 ONNE 305 TAURANGA 347 LIVORNO 306 MONTREAL 348 MAYOTTE 307 POTI 349 BELAWAN 308 AUCKLAND 350 LAGOS (NIGERIA) 309 SETUBAL 351 MANILA 310 IQUIQUE 352 MELBOURNE 311 ABIDJAN 353 HOUSTON 312 MARSEILLE 354 SAN VICENTE 313 CONSTANTZA 355 BALBOA 314 VANCOUVER (CANADA) 356 GUAYAQUIL 315 OWENDO 357 ARICA 316 NOUAKCHOTT 358 KHOMS 317 FREEPORT (BAHAMAS) 359 LOME 318 SEATTLE 360 GENOA 319 BENGHAZI 361 PORT REUNION 320 KOPER 362 SAN PEDRO (COTE D’IVOIRE) 321 NACALA 363 MAZATLAN 322 TIN CAN ISLAND 364 TURBO 323 BRISTOL 365 PORT BOTANY 324 KRIBI DEEP SEA PORT 366 MAPUTO 325 DAR ES SALAAM 367 LAE 326 QASR AHMED 368 THESSALONIKI 327 PORT LOUIS 369 MOMBASA 328 DOUALA 370 LA SPEZIA 329 BINTULU 371 CORINTO 330 LE HAVRE 372 Executive summary | 6 Port Name Overall Ranking Port Name Overall Ranking LONG BEACH 373 ASHDOD 390 FREMANTLE 374 PORT ELIZABETH 391 LOS ANGELES 375 ISKENDERUN 392 TEMA 376 ITAJAI 393 IMBITUBA 377 POINTE-NOIRE 394 KINGSTON (JAMAICA) 378 SAVANNAH 395 DJIBOUTI 379 TRIESTE 396 WALVIS BAY 380 OAKLAND 397 DAKAR 381 DURBAN 398 BEJAIA 382 PRINCE RUPERT 399 ACAJUTLA 383 RIJEKA 400 MONTEVIDEO 384 TACOMA 401 LYTTELTON 385 COTONOU 402 MATADI 386 MERSIN 403 DAMIETTA 387 NGQURA 404 PORT SUDAN 388 CAPE TOWN 405 LUANDA 389 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2021 data. There are 55 new entrants to the CPPI 2023, and several significant movers since the CPPI 2022. One hundred ports improved their ranking in CPPI 2023 compared to CPPI 2022, with some of the largest movers improving their ranking by more than 200 places. 7 | Executive summary Executive summary | 8 1. Introduction Since the start of maritime trade, ports have played a central role in the economic and social development of countries. The innovation of containerization by Malcom McLean in 1958 changed the course of the shipping industry and engendered significant changes to where and how goods are manufactured. Container ports remain vital nodes in global supply chains and are crucial to the growth strategies of many emerging economies. The development of high-quality port infrastructure, operated efficiently, has often been a prerequisite for successful growth strategies, particularly those driven by exports. When done correctly, it can attract investment in production and distribution systems and eventually, support the growth of manufacturing and logistics, create employment, and increase income levels. In contrast, a poorly functioning or inefficient port can hinder trade growth, with a profound impact on LLDCs and SIDS. The port, along with the access infrastructure (inland waterways, railways, roads) to the hinterland, is a vital link to the global marketplace and needs to operate efficiently. Efficient performance encompasses several factors, such as the port’s efficiency itself, the availability of sufficient draught, quay, and dock facilities, the quality of road and rail connections, the competitiveness of these services, and the effectiveness of the procedures utilized by public agencies for container clearance. Any inefficiencies or non-tariff barriers among these actors will result in higher costs, reduced competitiveness, and lower trade volumes (Kathuria 2018). More specifically, the efficiency of port infrastructure has been identified as a key contributor to the overall port competitiveness and international trade costs. Micco et al. (2003) identified a link between port efficiency and the cost of international trade. Clark, Dollar, and Micco (2004) found a reduction 9 | Introduction in country inefficiency, specifically transport cost, from the 25th to 75th percentile, resulting in an increase in bilateral trade of around 25 percent. Wilmsmeier, Hoffmann, and Sanchez (2006) confirmed the impact of port performance on international trade costs, finding that doubling port efficiency in a pair of ports had the same impact on trade costs as halving the physical distance between the ports. Hoffmann, Saeed, and Sødal (2020) analyzed the short- and long-term impacts of liner shipping bilateral connectivity on South Africa’s trade flows, and showed that gross domestic product (GDP), the number of common direct connections, and the level of competition have a positive and significant effect on trade flows. However, ports and terminals, particularly for containers, can often be the main sources of shipment delays, supply chain disruptions, additional costs, and reduced competitiveness. Poorly performing ports are characterized by limited spatial and operating efficiency, maritime and landside access, oversight, and coordination among the public agencies involved, which lower predictability and reliability. The result is that instead of facilitating trade, the port increases the cost of imports and exports, reduces competitiveness, and inhibits economic growth and poverty reduction. The effect on national and regional economies can be severe [see inter alia World Bank (2013)] and has driven numerous efforts to improve performance to strengthen competitiveness. Port performance is also a key consideration for container shipping lines that operate liner services on fixed schedules, based on agreed pro-forma berth windows. Delays at any of the scheduled ports of call on the route served by the vessel would have to be made good before the vessel arrives at the next port of call, to avoid an adverse impact on the efficient operations of the service. As such, port efficiency and port turnaround time at all the ports of call are important subjects for operators, and monitoring port performance has become an increasingly important undertaking in the competitive landscape. One of the major challenges to improving efficiency has been the lack of reliable measures to compare operational performance across different ports. The old management idiom, ‘you cannot manage what you cannot measure,’ is reflective of the historical challenge of both managing and overseeing the sector. While modern ports collect data for performance purposes, it is difficult to benchmark the outcomes against leading ports or ports with similar profiles due to the lack of comparative data. Unsurprisingly, there is a long history of attempts to identify a comparative set of indicators to measure port or terminal performance. A brief review of the literature was provided in The Container Port Performance Index 2020: A Comparable Assessment of Container Port Performance (World Bank 2021), CPPI 2020, which illustrated the broad approaches identified and commented on the merits and demerits of each. The measures fell into three broad categories: Firstly, measures of operational and financial performance; secondly, measures of economic efficiency; and thirdly, measures that rely, predominately, on data from sources exogenous to the port. This review has not been replicated in CPPI 2023, and interested readers are directed to CPPI 2020 (World Bank 2021), or the extant literature. One of the general challenges of nearly all the approaches has been the quality, consistency, and availability of data; the standardization of definitions employed; and the capacity and willingness of organizations to collect and transmit the data to a collating body. At a slightly higher level, there are several aggregate indicators that provide an indication of the comparative quality and performance of maritime gateways. The World Bank Logistics Performance Index (LPI) (Arvis et al. 2018) and the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) 4.0 both report on the perceived efficiency of seaport services and border clearance processes and indicate the extent to which inefficiencies at a nation’s sea borders can impact international trade Introduction | 10 competitiveness. But the aggregate nature of the indicators, and the fact that they are perception based, means that they offer at best an indication of comparative performance and offer little to guide spatial or operating performance improvements at the level of the individual port. This could change if the next version of the LPPI reflects the movement of the consignment from origin to destination. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s (UNCTAD’s) Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI) provides an indicator of a port’s position within the liner shipping network, which is partly a result of the port’s performance, but does not directly measure it. Like the CPPI, the LSCI is limited to container ports. Digitalization offers an opportunity to measure and compare container port performance in a robust and reliable manner. New technologies, increased digitalization and digitization, and growing willingness on the part of industry stakeholders to work collectively toward system-wide improvements have created the capacity and opportunity to measure and compare container port performance. The data used to compile the CPPI 2023 are from S&P’s Global Port Performance Program. This program commenced in 2009 to drive efficiency improvements in container port operations and supporting programs to optimize port calls. The aim of CPPI was to utilize the existing empirical data to establish an unbiased metric for comparing container port performance among different ports, over time. The performance of container ports is most relevant in terms of customer experience, specifically the speed and efficiency with which customer assets are handled. In this fourth of CPPI, the focus remains exclusively on quayside performance, which reflects the experience of a container ship operator - the port’s primary customer - and its fundamental value stream. The operational efficiency of how ports receive, and handle container ships is critically important in a carrier’s decision to choose a port over other options. The purpose of the CPPI is to help identify opportunities to improve a terminal or a port that will ultimately benefit all public and private stakeholders. The CPPI is intended to serve as a benchmark for important stakeholders in the global economy, including national governments, port authorities and operators, development agencies, supranational organizations, various maritime interests, and other public and private stakeholders engaged in trade, logistics, and supply chain services. The joint team from the World Bank and S&P Global Market Intelligence intends to continue to enhance the methodology, scope, and data in future annual iterations, reflecting refinement, stakeholder feedback, and improvements in data scope and quality. References Arvis, Jean-François, Lauri Ojala, Christina Wiederer, Ben Shepherd, Anasuya Raj, Karlygash Dairabayeva, and Tuomas Kiiski. 2018. Connecting to Compete 2018: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy. Washington DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/ handle/10986/29971/LPI2018.pdf. Clark, Ximena, David Dollar, and Alejandro Micco. 2004. “Port Efficiency, Maritime Transport Costs, and Bilateral Trade.” Journal of Development Economics 75 (2): 417–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jdeveco.2004.06.005. Hoffmann, Jan, Naima Saeed, and Sigbjørn Sødal. 2020. “Liner Shipping Bilateral Connectivity and Its Impact on South Africa’s Bilateral Trade Flows.” Maritime Economics & Logistics 2020, 22 (3): 473–499. DOI: 10.1057/s41278- 019-00124-8. 11 | Introduction Kathuria, Sanjay. 2018. A Glass Half Full: The Promise of Regional Trade in South Asia. Washington DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30246. Levinson, Marc. 2006. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. Princeton, New Jersey, United States: Princeton University Press. Micco, Alejandro, Ricardo J. Sanchez, Georgina Pizzolitto, Jan Hoffmann, Gordon Wilmsmeier, and Martin Sgut. 2003. “Port Efficiency and International Trade: Port Efficiency as a Determinant of Maritime Transport Costs.” Maritime Economics & Logistics, 5 (2): 199–218. DOI:10.1057/palgrave. mel.9100073. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2021. Review of Maritime Transport 2021. Geneva: UNCTAD. https://unctad.org/webflyer/review-maritime-transport-2021. Wilmsmeier, Gordon, Jan Hoffmann, and Ricardo J. Sanchez. 2006. “The Impact of Port Characteristics on International Maritime Trade Costs.” Research in Transportation Economics, 16 (1): 117–140. DOI:10.1016/S0739- 8859(06)16006-0. World Bank. 2013. “Opening the Gates: How the Port of Dar es Salaam Can Transform Tanzania.” Tanzania Economic Update 3, May 21, 2013. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/tanzania/ publication/opening-the- gates-how-the-port-of-dar-es-salaam-can-transform-tanzania- backup#:~:text=US%241%2C759%20million%20 %E2%80%93%20the%20total,port%20of%20Dar%20 es%20Salaam. World Bank. 2022. The Container Port Performance Index 2021: A Comparable Assessment of Container Port Performance. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2023. The Container Port Performance Index 2022: A Comparable Assessment of Container Port Performance. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2024. The Container Port Performance Index 2023: A Comparable Assessment of Container Port Performance. Washington, DC: World Bank. Introduction | 12 2. The Port Performance Program Introduction Container (liner) shipping services are generally highly structured service rotations. They are typically set up with weekly departure frequencies, a fixed sequence of port calls, and standard pro forma day and time-specific berthing windows. Once a service has been defined or adjusted, it will usually remain intact for many months, or even years. The berthing windows are pre-agreed with the terminal and port operators, usually based on a slightly higher than expected average quantity of container exchange moves, and ideally modest buffers in the sea legs between ports. The clear advantages of this model are that shippers can make long-term supply decisions and ports and terminals schedule and balance their resources to meet expected demand. With a well-planned and well-executed pro forma schedule, they can achieve higher levels of reliability and predictability. This, in turn, can lead to more effective supply chain operations and planning as container ships spend around 15 percent to 20 percent of their total full rotation time in ports, with the balance being spent at sea. Reduced port time can allow ship operators to reduce vessel speed between port calls, thereby conserving fuel, reducing emissions, and lowering costs in the process. Conversely, for every unplanned additional hour in port or at anchorage, the ships need to increase speed to maintain the schedule, resulting in increased fuel consumption, costs, and emissions. 13 | The Port Performance Program In extreme cases, ships that fall many hours behind their pro forma schedule will start to arrive at ports outside of their agreed windows, causing berth availability challenges for ports and terminals, particularly those with high berth utilization rates. This, in turn, causes delay to shipments and disruption to supply chains. A service recovery can involve significantly higher sailing speeds, and therefore, higher fuel consumption, emissions, and costs, or the omission of a port or ports from the service rotation. Time is valuable for stakeholders, and so it is logical to measure port performance based on the total amount of time ships are required to spend in port. The CPPI 2023 has again been developed based on the total port time in the manner explained in subsequent sections. This iteration has utilized data from the full calendar year of 2023 and has employed the same two approaches as the earlier editions, an administrative approach, and a statistical approach. The resulting ranking of container port performance reflects as closely as possible actual port performance, while being statistically robust. The data are discussed in this section, with the methodologies discussed in Chapter 3. The results are presented in Chapter 4, and in more detail in Appendix A. The Port Performance Program The data used to compile the CPPI is from S&P Global’s Port Performance Program. The program was started in 2009 with the goal of supporting efficiency improvements in container port operations and to support projects to optimize container port calls. The program includes 10 of the world’s largest liner shipping companies that collectively operate close to 80 percent of global fleet capacity. The liner shipping companies provide the program with a series of data points comprising operational time stamps and other bits of information such as move counts for each individual port call undertaken globally. The data are provided monthly and cover the full global networks of each liner shipping company and their subsidiaries. In 2023, performance time stamp data were captured for 194,198 port calls involving 253.7 million container moves at 876 container terminals in 508 ports worldwide. Following receipt from the shipping lines, the port call data undergoes several validation and quality checks before mapping to historical AIS vessel movement data, which enables tracking and verification of the shipping line data. The geo-fencing of port and terminal zones within the AIS system supports the creation of several of the performance metrics tracked in the program. Most of the port performance metrics are constructed from the combined AIS and liner shipping data. The combination of empirical shipping line data and AIS movement data enables the construction of more accurate and granular metrics to measure container port performance. Many of the metrics consist of a time component cross-referenced with workload achieved in that time, either in the form of move counts or a specific task within the container port call process. Time stamps, definitions, and methods to calculate metrics are fully standardized in collaboration with the shipping line partners in the program. The Automatic Identification System and Port Zoning AIS technology is used to track and monitor vessels in near real time. It sends information on a vessel’s movement, speed, direction, and other particulars via satellite and terrestrial stations. The system’s function as a localized service, and indeed global tracking, was initially considered secondary. The AIS primarily functions as a navigational safety aid, to ensure the safety and efficiency of navigation, safety of life at sea, and maritime environmental protection.1 AIS was designed for the avoidance of vessel collision, as outlined in the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention.2 The Port Performance Program | 14 All ships of net tonnage of at least 300 gross register tonnage (GRT) performing international voyages, all cargo ships of at least 500 GRT not performing international voyages, and all passenger ships, regardless of size, should be equipped with AIS. This allows vessels to automatically transfer data and a plethora of navigational and identification information to other nearby ships and relevant port authorities in the form of structured messages.3 The technical requirements for AIS are specified by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Recommendation ITU-R M.1371-5(02/2014).4 For maritime domain awareness and safety purposes, the use of continuous 24/7, near-real-time online AIS data makes it possible to monitor areas, vessels, and routes; generate shore-based alerts; and provide useful positional and navigational information in general (IALA 2005). Satellite-based AIS receivers offer coverage outside the land-based antennas’ range by covering the whole globe from pole to pole. Satellite AIS coverage can extend to the entire exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or globally, including remote coastal areas (IALA 2016). In the case of ports5, the usage of ‘zones’ helps in recording a vessel’s navigational status and positioning. AIS zones offer different indicators activated automatically by the vessel’s signal reporting its position. Every port has at least one zone created in a way that captures the arrivals and sailings of vessels at cargo-handling facilities but avoids spurious reports being recorded from passing traffic. Where a subject port is geographically spread out with terminals located remotely, it is likely that there will be more than one zone, with all zones linked by a standard port identification number. Ports that straddle a river or another similar body of water will often have zones along opposing shorelines with a track separating them, thus avoiding the capture of AIS reports from traffic navigating through a fairway or channel. Once again, the individual zones will be linked to their common port using the port’s unique identification number. Zones also cover anchorages to record vessels arriving at a port but awaiting authority to enter, or vessels laid up awaiting orders. Additional zones cover the arrival of vessels at repair yards or those navigating locks. Anchorage zones may be created on an ad hoc basis. Not all ports have anchorage areas and among those that do, not all are shown in nautical charts. Whenever possible, S&P Global uses its own tracking and observation tools to determine where vessels anchor and create zones accordingly. Each anchorage zone is linked to the relevant port using the subject port’s unique identification number. AIS is generally reliable, but it also has limitations that can impact the transmission and quality of the data captured. Some factors that may affect the signal could be the AIS transponder being turned off deliberately, problematic reception, high traffic density areas, weather conditions, or anomalous positions. The Anatomy of a Port Call Every container ship port call can be broken down into six distinct steps. These individual steps are illustrated in Figure 2.1. ‘Total port hours’ is defined as the total time elapsed between when a ship reaches a port (either port limits, pilot station, or anchorage zone, whichever event occurs first) to when it departs from the berth after having completed its cargo exchange. The time spent from berth departure (All Lines Up) to the departure from the port limits is excluded. This is because any port performance loss that pertains to departure delays, such as pilot or tug availability, readiness of the mooring gang, channel access and water depths, forecasting completion time, communication, and ship readiness will be incurred while the ship is still alongside the berth. 15 | The Port Performance Program Additional time resulting from these causes will, therefore, be captured during the period between 4. Last Lift and 5. All Lines Up (“berth departure). FIGURE 2.1 • The Anatomy of a Port Call 1 2 Arrival Port All Lines Limits Fast 1 Arrival At Anchorage and Waiting Time at Anchorage 3 (Berth, Channel, Pilot etc.) 2 Steam in Time Port Limit to All Lines Fast. First Lift Gangway down, authority clearence, abour available, 3 POINTS OF position crenes, unlash, load approval, etc ACTIVITY All cargo operations, driven by Crane 4 Intesity and Gross Crane Performance Last Lift Lashing and checks, authority clearence, crew onboard, 4 5 engine ready, repairs completed, bunkers, channel clear, tugs & pilot Exit Port All Lines 6 Steam out Limits Up 6 5 Source: Original figure produced for this publication. Ships may spend extra time in a port after the departure from a berth, but the time associated with these additional activities is excluded from the CPPI, as they are not influenced by the operational performance of the terminal or port. Ships may dwell within a port’s limits for bunkering, repairs, or simply waiting in a safe area if they are unable to berth on arrival at their next port. Apart from bunkering being performed simultaneously with cargo operations, these causes of additional port time are not necessarily reflective of poor performance and hence, are excluded from the CPPI. Although none of these factors necessarily indicate port inefficiency, they can contribute to additional time spent in the port. For instance, clearance authorities’ delays can result in delays in the first lift and idle time after cargo operations have concluded. However, the data available do not provide enough detail to identify the root causes of such delays. It is assumed that only a small percentage of ships idle at the berth after cargo operations due to factors unrelated to port performance, and their inclusion does not significantly affect the CPPI rankings. The other four components of the port call can logically be grouped into two distinct blocks of time. The first comprises elapsed time between Arrival Port Limits and All Lines Fast (steps 1 and 2 in Figure 2.1); the second comprises time elapsed between All Lines Fast and All Lines Up (steps 2 to 5, also commonly referred to as ‘berth time’ or ‘berth hours’). The logic behind this division is that while there will always need to be time consumed between steps 2 and 5, the bulk of time between steps 1 and 2, excluding actual sailing in time, is waiting time, which can be eliminated. The Port Performance Program | 16 Overall Port Time Distribution The time stamps in the source data allow us to break down and summarize total port time into three categories: Arrival Time, Berth Idle, and Cargo Operations. Expressed as a percentage of total port hours recorded, the distribution of port time per ship size range and globally aggregated is shown in Figure 2.2. FIGURE 2.2 • In-Port Time Consumption 100% 90% 22.9% 18.2% 32.0% 28.1% 28.8% 80% 38.7% 8.0% 70% 10.5% 11.7% 11.7% 60% 12.2% 50% 16.9% 40% 73.8% 66.6% 30% 55.8% 60.2% 59.4% 20% 44.4% 10% 0% <1,500 1,501-5,000 5,001-8,500 8,501-13,500 >13,500 Overall Ship Size Range (nominal TEU) Arrival Time Berth Idle Cargo Operations Source: Original figure produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. As there is naturally some correlation between ship size and call size, a higher percentage of time is required for cargo operations for the larger ships, and this will be explored in detail later in this report. What is interesting, and surprising at the same time is that only 60 percent of the total port time is attributable to cargo operations, meaning there is potentially a lot of ‘wastage’ in terms of excess time in the system. The average duration of a port call in 2023 was 40.5 hours, which represents a slight increase over the global average of 36.8 hours in 2022. About 11.7 percent (or 3.71 hours) was idle time consumed at the berth immediately before and after cargo operations. Also known as the ‘Start-Up’ and ‘Finish’ sub-processes of a port call, each activity does not necessarily need to take more than 30 minutes to complete safely. There is, therefore, an opportunity to eliminate almost nearly four hours per call of port time globally simply through better planning, preparation, communication, and process streamlining. This time saved equates to more hours at sea, leading to slower sailing speeds, lower GHG emissions, and cost savings for the ship operator, which would be significant for each port call. In the second half of 2020, there was a rebound in the global sales of durable goods, most prominently in the US, and a sharp increase in the overall container volume demand. This coincided with continued COVID-19 restrictions and resulted in the emergence of severe port congestion. In 2021, this port congestion was still manifesting itself, reaching a peak in the third quarter of 2021 and the average 17 | The Port Performance Program arrival time per port call globally remained above 11 hours until the third quarter of 2022. The fourth quarter of 2022 saw reducing volumes and many ports were able to clear backlogs and reduce average arrival times to close to 10 hours per port call. The expectation was that the average port arrival time globally in 2023 will continue to decline to levels prior to the start of 2021, which is what has transpired. (see Figure 2.3) FIGURE 2.3 • Global Average Arrival Time Development 2022-2023 11.50 11.33 11.35 11.07 11.00 Average Arrival Hours 10.50 10.10 10.00 9.64 9.57 9.50 9.00 8.90 8.49 8.50 8.00 2022Q1 2022Q2 2022Q3 2022Q4 2023Q1 2023Q2 2023Q3 2023Q4 Source: Original figure produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2022-23 data. At a regional level and broken down by ship size groups, the change in average arrival time per region and per ship size group over the 2022-2023 period is illustrated in Table 2.1. The column ‘All’ shows the aggregate change in quantity of hours from arrival at port limits or start of anchorage time, to berthing for cargo operations to commence for each region, across all ship size groups. The Port Performance Program | 18 TABLE 2.1 • Average Arrival Time Development per Region and Ship Size, 2022–2023 CHANGE (HR) SHIP SIZE RANGE REGION 1 <1,500 2 1,501–5,000 3 5,001–8,500 4 8,501–13,500 5 >13,500 ALL AFR 3.8 2.0 (2.5) 7.4 14.4 2.0 LAM 1.4 0.3 1.3 0.5 (0.0) 0.6 MED 2.2 1.4 (0.3) (0.6) (4.0) 0.9 MEI 4.3 2.6 1.5 (0.0) (0.1) 1.6 NAM (3.7) (10.0) (19.9) (28.0) (33.8) (19.1) NEA (1.6) (2.0) (1.1) (0.8) (0.3) (1.4) NEU 0.2 (0.3) (4.7) (6.9) (7.6) (3.1) OCE (2.1) (1.1) (2.4) (0.2)   (1.3) SEA (2.8) (2.8) (1.2) (0.6) (0.7) (2.0) Global 1.0 (0.9) (3.6) (3.3) (3.4) (1.8) Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2022 and 2023 data. At a global level, on average each port arrival decreased by 1.8 hours, as illustrated in Table 2.2. The largest increase in average arrival time was witnessed in North America (USA and Canada) with an average increase in time of 19.1 hours over all vessel sizes. By contrast, performance improved in Africa (Sub-Sahara) with an average 2.0-hour improvement in arrival time across all vessel sizes. Improvements in East Asia and Southeast Asia were also recorded. The overall improvements and reductions in average arrival hours in African ports has been driven by Dar Es Salaam, Monrovia, Douala, Pointe-Noire, Tema, Luanda, Lomé, Lagos, Port Victoria, Dakar, and Ngqura. The increase is slightly offset by increased average arrival time in Cape Town, San Pedro, Abidjan, and Mombasa. In East Asia, improvements were seen in Yantian and Yangshan but countered by increased time in Manila and Qingdao. There are no European ports in the top 20 improvers. Poti, La Spezia, Mersin, Trieste, Hamburg, and Koper all experienced longer average arrival times. Waiting time, defined as the period between ‘Arrival Port Limits’ or when the ship enters an anchorage zone, and ‘All Lines Fast’ can generally be regarded as wasted time. As such, in the construction of the CPPI, one possibility was to apply a penalty to waiting time. The decision was taken not to do so, as the introduction of a penalty of this type would be a normative judgement inconsistent with the overall aim of the study to create bean objective quantitative index. There was consideration as to whether to apply a discount to waiting time for the smallest segment of ships. Smaller ships generally suffer less priority than larger ones, and in some hub ports might be purposely idled at anchorage waiting to load cargo which is arriving from off-schedule ocean going ships. However, after reviewing average arrival time for the various ship size segments on a regional basis, the data did not support applying a discount to waiting time for the smallest segment of ships. (see Table 2.2). 19 | The Port Performance Program TABLE 2.2 • Average Arrival Time Performance per Ship Size Range per Region 2023 SHIP SIZE RANGE REGION <1,500 1,501–5,000 5,001–8,500 8,501–13,500 >13,500 AVERAGE AFR 31.7 29.4 30.5 27.4 28.1 29.7 LAM 9.3 7.6 10.0 8.2 10.4 8.3 MED 11.8 9.7 6.8 6.7 7.1 9.6 MEI 18.2 10.0 7.2 6.7 7.1 8.8 NAM 5.5 7.2 11.6 15.8 20.3 11.7 NEA 4.7 6.2 7.3 6.3 5.7 6.2 NEU 9.1 7.7 8.8 8.2 9.4 8.6 OCE 15.5 13.1 11.9 8.4 12.6 SEA 7.4 7.4 5.3 5.5 3.7 6.6 Average 11.0 9.3 9.3 8.3 7.2 9.1 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. To test the significance of purposely delayed smaller feeder vessels on the overall ranking, we conducted a simulation within the overall CPPI model. For all ports (not only the focus ports), we reduced the quantity of arrival hours by 50 percent for all ship calls where the capacity of the ship is 1,500 TEU or less in size. The quantity of berth hours for all ships was maintained at 100 percent, as was the average arrival hours for all other ship size groups. Since it is not possible to see from the data whether waiting time is voluntary or forced, it is difficult to find a suitable level at which to discount waiting time in this scenario. The port calls of ships with less than 1,500 TEUs of capacity comprise just 10 percent of the total calls in the CPPI. Therefore, the disparity in waiting times between ships with less than 1,500 TEUs of nominal capacity and other segments, as simulated, has only a small impact to the overall CPPI. To keep the data pure and avoid normative judgment that is inconsistent with an objective quantitative index, the rankings published in this iteration are not influenced by adjustments made to empirically recorded port hours. The Significance of Call Size As illustrated in Figure 2.4, over 60 percent of a port call is consumed through cargo operations, for the handling of containers. In this aspect of the call, call size is of great significance. Call size is far less significant when it comes to arrival time, which is more likely to be influenced by ship size. There have been several earlier studies, in which ships are grouped into size segments (ranges) based upon their size or capacity and port calls are ranked based on the time elapsed in port or on the berth. While these studies provide an indication, the optimum outcome requires the workload for each call to be taken into consideration. In this index, workload is represented by ‘Call Size,’ defined as the total quantity of containers (regardless of size), which were physically discharged, loaded, or restowed during a port call. The Port Performance Program | 20 FIGURE 2.4 • The Aggregated Correlation between Ship and Call Size 3,500 18,000 16,000 Average Ship Size (TEU capacity) 3,000 14,000 2,500 Average Call Size 12,000 2,000 10,000 1,500 8,000 6,000 1,000 4,000 500 2,000 0 0 <1,500 1,501–5,000 5,001–8,500 8,501–13,500 >13,500 Ship Size Range (nominal TEU) Call Size Ship Size Source: Original figure produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. Although there will be some level of correlation between the ship and call size, it is not a perfect correlation. For example, an 18,000 TEU capacity ship calling at a port in Thailand or southern Vietnam might exchange 1,000-2,000 containers per call, but that same ship in Yangshan or Singapore might exchange more than 4,000 containers. Similarly, in the Thai or southern Vietnamese ports, a 3,000 TEU (‘feeder’ ship) might exchange more than 3,000 containers, potentially twice that of an 18,000 TEU mainline ship at the same port. The 60 percent of a port call, during which containers are exchanged, is influenced by two sub-factors: 1. The quantity of cranes deployed 2. The speed at which the cranes, especially the long crane (the crane with the highest workload in terms of cycles), operate 21 | The Port Performance Program FIGURE 2.5 • Container Moves Performed per gross Crane Hour across Various Ship Sizes 26.0 24.8 Gross Cranne Moves per hr per 25.0 24.4 24.2 24.0 23.6 Ship Size range 23.0 22.6 22.0 20.9 21.0 20.0 19.0 18.0 <1,500 1,501–5,000 5,001–8,500 8,501–13,500 >13,500 Total/Average Ship Size Range Source: Original figure produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. The variation in containers handled per gross crane hour across all ship sizes is statistically minor. The global average for all ships is 23.5 moves per hour, so the smallest ships are 9.4 percent less efficient than the average, whereas ships in the 8,501 TEU-13,500 TEU range are 3.6 percent more efficient than the average. It is often implied that larger ships are more difficult to work, but the data says otherwise. On the larger ships, the crane operator has higher hoists and longer trolley distances, which increases cycle time, but this is offset by more moves per bay and hatch, resulting in more containers handled per gantry or hatch-cover move. The smaller ships can often encounter list or trim issues, making it harder for the operator to hit the cell-guides and the hatch-cover and lashing systems. FIGURE 2.6 • Gross Crane Productivity by Call Size 26.0 25.1 25.0 24.9 Groos Crane Productivity 24.2 24.0 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.6 23.5 23.0 22.8 22.0 21.0 20.8 20.0 19.6 19.0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ge 5 50 00 50 00 00 00 00 ra <2 ,0 ,5 1– 2, , 3, 4, 6, , ve –1 –1 –2 >6 1– 1– 1– 1– 25 01 1 l/A 01 50 50 00 00 00 1,0 1,5 Al 2, 3, 2, 4, Call Size Source: Original figure produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. The Port Performance Program | 22 FIGURE 2.7 • Crane Productivity by Crane Intensity 31.0 30.7 29.0 Moves per Gross Crane Hour 27.0 25.0 24.0 23.7 23.1 23.2 23.0 22.5 22.6 21.8 21.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rounded Crane Intensity Source: Original figure produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2022 data. A review of gross crane productivity versus call size and crane intensity reveals no strong increases or decreases through the ranges. Assessed on call size ranges, there is a −5.2 percent to 3.8 percent variation to the average. Meanwhile, an assessment of crane intensity reveals that the first and last segments have extremely high and low performances, respectively, but in the mid-range, there is little difference in crane productivity across the seven ranges. This implies that crane speed (productivity) does not gradually increase (or decrease) as ship size, call size, or crane intensity increases. It is therefore statistically not a key determinant of operating hours. The far more significant influencer of operating time is the quantity of cranes deployed (crane intensity). FIGURE 2.8 • Call Size versus Crane Intensity 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.0 Crane Intensity 4.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.0 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.0 00 50 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 50 00 50 00 00 ,0 <2 1, 0 ,0 ,5 2, 6, 3, 4, 1– >6 –2 –1 1– 1– 1– 1– 1– 25 01 01 00 50 50 00 00 1, 0 1, 5 2, 2, 3, 4, Call Size Range Source: Original figure produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. 23 | The Port Performance Program FIGURE 2.9 • Average Moves per Crane 1,800 1,699 Container Moves per Quay Crane 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,013 1,000 840 800 737 642 600 550 463 428 400 342 212 200 117 0 50 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 00 ge 50 50 00 00 00 ra <2 1,0 ,5 ,0 ,0 1– 2, 3, 4, 6, ve –1 –2 >6 1– 1– 1– 1– 1– 25 01 l/A 01 50 50 00 00 00 1,0 1,5 Al 2, 3, 2, 4, Call Size Range Source: Original figure produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. As might be expected, the more container moves are to be handled, the more cranes must be deployed. However, crane intensity lags call size growth, which means that as the call size grows, each crane is required to handle more containers. Theoretically, if a call with 1,000 moves was assigned 2 cranes, then one with 5,000 moves would require 10 cranes for a status quo, and that does not happen often, if at all. Since the exchange rate per crane does not increase progressively with ship size, call size, or crane intensity growth, the overall operating time increases. This makes call size differentiation the critical factor to consider when attempting port performance benchmarking and ranking. The Port Performance Program | 24 3. The Approach and Methodology The Structure of the Data Before discussing the methodology employed in constructing the CPPI with matrix factorization, it is helpful to first summarize the structure of available data. The data set is segmented by the following five categories of ship sizes: • Feeders: <1,500 TEUs • Intra-regional: 1,500 TEUs–5,000 TEUs • Intermediate: 5,000 TEUs–8,500 TEUs • Neo-Panamax: 8,500 TEUs–13,500 TEUs • Ultra-large container carriers: >13,500 TEUs For each category, there are 10 different bands for call size. The port productivity is captured by average idle hour, which consists of two parts: port-to-berth (PB) and on-berth (B). In the previous CPPI iteration, 25 | The Approach and Methodology total variables used = 5 x 10 x 2. Of course, many of them have missing values. The objective is to build a model to summarize these variables and then construct a port productivity index for all ports under consideration. The average waiting time and average berth time is calculated for each call size. The resulting data is a table/matrix whose rows represent ports and whose columns contain the average waiting and berth times of each call size. Moving on to the construction of the dataset for the CPPI, for a port to qualify for inclusion in the CPPI it must have registered at least 24 valid port calls where port hours can be calculated within the full calendar year. Of the 508 ports for which S&P Global received port call information, 405 are included in the main index of CPPI 2023. There were 182,855 distinct port calls recorded in the data over the period at those 405 main ports. A further 103 ports registered less than 24 calls each, these ports are excluded from the CPPI 2023. The CPPI is based solely on the average port hours per port call, with port hours being the total time elapsed from when a ship first entered a port to when it departed from the berth. Due to the large volume of data, it was possible and prudent to break it down into ship size and call size groups or ranges. However, too much fragmentation would have diluted the data to the extent that more assumptions than actual empirical data would be present in the index. Therefore, the data were grouped into five distinct ship sizes, and then within each ship size group by call size group, as reflected in Figure 3.1 below. FIGURE 3.1 • The Structure of the CPPI CONTAINER PORT PERFORMANCE INDEX SHIP SIZE GROUPS 1,501– 5,001– 8,501– > < 1,500 5,000 8,500 13,500 13,500 TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU CALL SIZE GROUPS < 250 251–500 501– 1,001– 1,501– 2,001– 2,501– 3,001– 4,001– > 6,000 moves moves 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 4,000 6,000 moves moves moves moves moves moves moves moves Source: Original figure produced for this publication. The number of ship size groups was limited to five, and the number of call size groups to 10. That results in a 50 (5 x 10) matrix for the qualifying ports for the main index of CPPI 2022. However, there were insufficient port calls in the larger five call size groups for the less than 1,500 TEU ship size group and similarly for the two larger call size groups for the 1,501 TEU-5,000 TEU ship size group. In total, the data was distributed into 43 ship-call size groups. The Approach and Methodology | 26 TABLE 3.1 • Port Calls Distribution CALL SIZE GROUP SHIP SIZE <250 251- 501– 1001– 1501– 2001– 2501– 3001– 4001– >6000 GROUP 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 4000 6000 1 <1,500 12.0% 30.5% 46.1% 8.0% 1.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.8% 2 1,501–5,000 2.1% 10.6% 30.4% 25.0% 15.4% 8.5% 3.9% 3.3% 0.7% 0.0% 3 5,001–8,500 0.4% 2.6% 14.0% 19.6% 19.1% 14.2% 10.4% 11.4% 6.8% 1.7% 4 8,501–13,500 0.1% 1.1% 6.5% 11.8% 13.4% 13.6% 12.1% 18.1% 15.6% 7.7% 5 >13,500 0.0% 0.2% 1.5% 3.6% 5.8% 7.9% 9.2% 19.6% 28.9% 23.2% Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. The five ship size groups were based on where they might be deployed and the similarities of ships within each group. Although a sixth group for ships more than 18,000 TEU or 24,000 TEU could have been added, it would have highly diluted the data in the two larger ship size groups. TABLE 3.2 • Ship Size Group Definitions NOMINAL TEU DESCRIPTION CAPACITY RANGE Less than 1,500 Almost exclusively feeder vessels, often connecting small outlying ports with regional hub ports. Some intra-regional services will also have ships in this size range. 1,500 to 5,000 A significant quantity of these classic Panamax ships are deployed on intra-regional trades. They are found on North-South trades to and from Africa, Latin America, and Oceania, as well as Transatlantic services. 5,000 to 8,500 Vessels within this size group are mainly deployed on the North-South trade lanes. Vessel cascading and improving port capabilities has seen them start to emerge as stock vessels for Africa, Latin America, and Oceania trades. There is some presence on Transatlantic and Asia–Middle East trades as well. 8,500 to 13,500 These Neo-Panamax vessels are largely deployed on East-West trades, particularly Trans-Pacific, both to North America’s west coast as well as via either the Panama or Suez Canals to North America’s east coast. They also feature on Asia–Middle East trades, with some deployed on Asia– Mediterranean rotations. Greater than 13,500 These ultra-large container ships (ULCS) are mainly deployed on Asia–Europe (serving both North Europe and the Mediterranean) and Asia–United States trades, especially on Trans-Pacific services calling at North America’s west coast ports. Source: Original table produced for this publication. The application of ship size groups is less important than call size groups, particularly since the call data is already split into 10 call size groups. However, the objective of the CPPI is to highlight through comparison the performance gaps and opportunities to save fuel and reduce emissions. The analysis should, therefore, consider that the larger the ship, the more fuel it consumes, and the higher the potential to save fuel and reduce emissions. 27 | The Approach and Methodology FIGURE 3.2 • Percentage of Port Calls per Ship Size Group - 2023 Ship Size Distribution by Calls - 2023 >13,500 <1,500 9% 13% 8,501– 13,500 16% 5,001–8,500 1,501–5,000 15% 47% Source: Original figure produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. Almost 47 percent of all ship port calls in 2023 were from the Panamax (1,501-5,000 TEU) size of ships. With just 9 percent of port calls made by ships more than 13,500 TEU, it was decided not to disaggregate these further. As the main participants of the Port Performance Program are primarily deep-sea operators, there was a relatively small number of calls in the feeder segment (less than 1,500 TEU capacity). An attempt has been made to make the 10 call size groups as narrow as possible by grouping together calls in instances where they are most likely to have received similar crane intensity provisions. The analysis then compares all qualifying ports on how close (or far) the individual call size is to the average call size within each call size group. TABLE 3.3 • Call Size Sensitivity CALL SIZE GROUP CALL SIZE 251– 501– 1001– 1501– 2001– 2501– 3001– 4001– SENSITIVITY <250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 4000 6000 >6000 Average 166 377 730 1,228 1,732 2,230 2,735 3,437 4,755 7,804 Median 177 379 722 1,218 1,719 2,220 2,726 3,408 4,667 6,932 Lower Range 166 377 730 1,228 1,732 2,230 2,735 3,437 4,755 7,804 Upper Range 177 379 722 1,218 1,719 2,220 2,726 3,408 4,667 6,932 Total Ports 367 389 369 313 259 213 182 153 112 60 Within Range 254 355 323 304 259 213 182 153 110 49 Percentage in Range 69.2% 91.3% 87.5% 97.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.2% 81.7% Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. The Approach and Methodology | 28 To assess the sensitivity within each call size group across all 405 qualifying ports, the median call size between all ports within a call size group was taken and a tolerance range of 15 percent above and below the median created (see Table 3.5). In the six call size groups from the 1,001–1,500 to 4,001–6,000 moves groups, more than 96.9 percent of ports have an average call size well within this tolerance range. Beyond the threshold of 6,000 moves per call, the call size has a much lower impact on crane intensity. This is because the number of cranes that can be deployed is limited by the overall number of cranes available or stowage splits. The quantity of ports with an average call size within the tolerance range in the three smallest call size groups is not as high as the quantity in the six call size groups from the 1,001–1,500 to 4,001–6,000 moves groups. However, for ports with an average call size above the tolerance range, it would be possible to increase crane intensity to match the slightly higher call sizes, and, therefore, the conclusion is that objective comparisons can be made within all 10 call size groups. The objective of preparing the index and the ranking is that it should reflect as closely as possible actual port performance, whilst also being statistically robust. With respect to the largest ports—the top 100 ports by annual move count—there is real empirical data present in each of the 43 distinct ship size and call size categories. However, for smaller ports there are many categories with no data, particularly those with only a few hundred calls in total. If these unpopulated categories are ignored, the appraisal of performance would be undertaken on different quantities of categories, which is likely to unduly disadvantage smaller ports that might well be quite efficient despite their modest size and throughput. Constructing the Index: The Administrative Approach Imputing missing values: The administrative approach The handicap of missing values can be addressed in two different ways in the administrative approach and the statistical approach. The former involves assigning values to empty categories based on data that are available when a port has registered a data point within a specific ship size range. TABLE 3.4 • Quantity of Ports Included per Ship Size Group SHIP SIZE RANGE QUANTITY OF PORTS INCLUDED BASE CALL SIZE Less than 1,500 TEUs 327 251–500 1,500–5,000 TEUs 374 501–1,000 5,000–8,500 TEUs 227 1,001–1,500 8,500–13,500 TEUs 186 1,501–2,000 More than 13,500 TEUs 117 3,001–4,000 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. For each ship size group, the call size group that has the largest quantity of data representation is selected (see Table 3.4) as the Base Call Size group. Ideally, this is a mid-range call size group because the lowest and highest groups can demonstrate some uniqueness. In cases where there is no actual data for the base call size group, the next highest group is examined to find an actual data set. If none is found, then the approach involves looking at the immediately lower call size band. At the end of this exercise, every port has a value assigned for the base call size group. 29 | The Approach and Methodology Imputing vessel arrival values. Where a call size group does not have an arrival hours value, it is populated using the overall average arrival time for all vessels registered at that port across all call size groups within each specific ship size group. This is logical as call size is a less important determinant of waiting time than ship size. Imputing berth hours. From the base call size group, moving left toward the lowest group and right toward the highest group, in groups where no value exists, a value is determined on a pro rata basis given the adjacent call size group value, actual data or imputed. The rationale is that if within one call size group a port has either higher or lower berth hours than the average, the adjacent call size group too is likely to show similar trends. Table 3.5 contains an illustrative example. In this case, port A had a higher quantity of hours in the base call size group than the group average. It is assumed that would also have been the case had the port registered actual calls in the 501–1,000 and 1,501–2,000 call size groups. The opposite is true for port B, which achieved a lower quantity of hours in the base call size group. The calculation for port A in the 501–1,000 call size group is actual hours within the group 1,001–1,500 (12.0) multiplied by the group average factor (0.9) for a prorated quantity of average berth hours of (10.8). TABLE 3.5 • An Example of Imputing Missing Values CALL SIZE GROUP PORT 501–1,000 1,001–1,500 1,501–2,000 Port A 10.8 12.0 14.4 Port B 7.2 8.0 9.6 Group Average 9.0 10.0 12.0 Factor Multiplier 0.9 Base 1.2 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. Note: The numbers in the green highlighted cells have been imputed by multiplying the base cells by the factor multiplier determined by the overall group average. The inherent risk with this approach is that poor or good performance within just one group will cascade across all call size groups. It also assumes that a port’s ability to add cranes to larger call size groups exists, which might not be true in all cases. On the other hand, it would be illogical to blindly assume that any port would simply achieve the average of the entire group or, possibly worse, to assume that a port performing below average in one call size group would miraculously perform much better than average in others where it did not record any actual calls. Constructing the index: the administrative approach Aggregating arrival and berth hours into total port hours. This report indicated earlier that a case could be made for penalizing waiting time which is regarded as pure waste. However, as expressed earlier, this would be a normative judgment, accordingly both arrival and berth hours are weighted as 1.0 and the two time segments are summed to form total port hours in CPPI 2021. Appraising port hours performance. Average port hours are naturally higher in the larger than smaller call size groups. This can magnify the difference in hours between a subject port and the average port hours of the overall group. So, appraising on the difference between a port’s average hours and average hours of the group may skew the scoring unduly toward the larger call size calls. There are also The Approach and Methodology | 30 far fewer calls within the larger than smaller call size groups, and this also needs to be reflected in the construction of the CPPI to retain maximum objectivity. The method applied to each call size group individually is that the port’s average port hours is compared with the group’s average port hours as a negative or positive quantity of hours. The result of that comparison is weighted by the ratio of port calls in each call size group for the entire group of ports Table 3.6 provides an illustration as to how it is done.7 TABLE 3.6 • Port Hours Performance Appraisal PORT PORT HOURS HOURS DIFFERENCE CALL SIZE GROUP WEIGHT RESULT Example Port 22.56 12.09 0.160 1.9344 Group Average 34.65 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. In this illustrative example, the subject port used 12.09 fewer hours than the average of the entire group (22.56 versus 34.65). Since 16.0 percent of all port calls in this ship size group were in the subject call size group, the difference in hours (12.09) is multiplied by ratio 0.160 for an overall index points result of 1.9344. Where a port uses more port time than the average for all ports, the index points become negative. Aggregation to a score and rank per ship size group. The “results” achieved per port within each of the 10 call size groups are then summed together to calculate a score within the overall ship size group (it is five and eight groups rather than 10 groups in the case of the two smaller ship size groups, respectively). Based upon these scores, there is a sub-ranking performed within each ship size group that can be reviewed in the final CPPI rankings. However, the imputation method might unfairly appraise some ports that only recorded data within a few call size groups. If, for example, the performance in a few call size groups was worse than the average for all ports within the ship size group, this would be prorated to all call size groups. This required a judgment, as the alternative of ignoring call size groups without actual data, effectively resulting in a zero score for those groups, would not necessarily result in a better outcome. In the latter case, ports with limited call size diversity would not be credited with positive scores in each and every call size group which they are likely to have achieved if they had a greater diversity of call sizes. Aggregating all ship size groups No allowance was made for ports that did not handle ships within specific ship size groups during the period under consideration. The quantity of ports being included per ship size group was presented earlier in table 3.2. The primary reason is many of the smaller ports are not capable of handling some of the larger ship sizes and so would in effect be awarded positive (or negative) results for scenarios that are physically impossible. The omission of scores within some ship size groups would only be an issue if an attempt was made to compare the performance of major mainline ports with those of far smaller ports. But this is a comparison that is neither fair nor valuable. For the comparison between similarly sized ports, this factor will not contribute, or at least not significantly. In aggregating the scores from the various ship size groups into the overall CPPI in the administrative approach, a factor was built in to differentiate the importance and significance of better performance 31 | The Approach and Methodology of larger ships over smaller ones. This was constructed based on the relative fuel consumption (and, therefore, emissions and cost) of different ship sizes in the form of an index (see Table 3.7). For each ship size group, a typical mid-range example ship was selected. Based upon the expected deployment of such ships, a range of sea legs were defined (and weighted), at a typical pro forma service speed, and the impact on fuel consumption that one hour longer (or shorter) in port would be likely to yield. TABLE 3.7 • Assumptions to Determine a Fuel Consumption Index NOMINAL TEU EXPECTED SEA LEG WEIGHT INDEX WEIGHT CAPACITY DEPLOYMENT (PERCENT) RANGE Less than 1,500 Feeders Singapore–Surabaya 25 0.46 TEUs Intra-regional Rotterdam–Dublin 25 Kingston–Port-au-Prince 25 Busan–Qingdao 25 1,500 to 5,000 Intra-regional Shanghai­–Manila 30 1.00 TEUs Africa Rotterdam–Genoa 30 Latin America Algeciras–Tema 10 Oceania Charleston–Santos 10 Transatlantic Xiamen–Brisbane 10 Felixstowe–New York 10 5,000 to 8,500 Africa Hong Kong–Tema 20 1.54 TEUs Latin America Charleston–Santos 20 Oceania Xiamen–Brisbane 20 Transatlantic Felixstowe–New York 20 Asia–Middle East Shanghai–Dubai 20 8,500 to 13,500 Transpacific Busan–Charleston (via Panama) 25 1.97 TEUs Asia–Middle East Hong Kong–Los Angeles 25 Asia–Mediterranean Shanghai–Dubai 25 Singapore–Piraeus 25 Greater than Asia–Mediterranean Singapore–Piraeus 40 2.57 13,500 TEUs Asia–North Europe Singapore–Rotterdam 40 Transpacific Hong Kong–Los Angeles 20 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. The index weight then suggests that it is 2.57 times more costly to recover an additional hour of port time at sea for a ship with capacity in excess of 13,500 TEUs than it would be for a ship in the 1,500– 5,000 TEU capacity range. The total aggregated index points per port within each ship size group are then weighted by this “cost” factor. The sum of the weighted index points for each port across all five ship size groups are then summed and the final CPPI ranking is based upon those weighted values. The primary focus was micro-delays and it was assumed that these would be recovered on long-haul ocean legs, and not between coastal ports, which would be more costly. Through simulation, if the index values are tweaked up or down by up to 10 percent the overall ranking is unaffected. If they are adjusted so that larger ship size groups have lower indices than smaller ones it results in radical changes to the overall ranking. To achieve a final CPPI score and ranking in the administrative approach, accumulated results within each ship size group are multiplied by the index values per ship size group The Approach and Methodology | 32 and then summed. The ranking is then based in descending order on final summed totals across all ship size groups. The resulting index using the administrative approach is presented in chapter 3 and appendix A. Constructing the index: the statistical approach Imputation of Missing Values A major practical problem is that most idle hour variables have a significant number of missing values. For instance, in the port performance data set, the two smaller ship sizes contain little data for the larger call sizes. Consequently, as in the administrative approach, the call size groups with more than 2,000 moves were removed from the <1,500 TEU ship category, and the call size groups with more than 4,000 moves were removed from the 1,501 TEU–5,000 TEU ship category. A more sophisticated approach is to use likelihood-based methods to impute those missing values. For the current data set, expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm can be utilized to provide a maximum- likelihood estimator for each missing value. It relies on two critical assumptions. The first assumption is that gaps are random, or more specifically, the gaps are not caused by sample selection bias. The second assumption is that all variables under consideration follow a normal distribution. Given the data set, these two assumptions are plausible. EM computes the maximum likelihood estimator for the mean and variance of the normal distribution given the observed data. Knowing the distribution that generates the missing data, we can then replace the missing values by their conditional expectation given the available data. Matrix factorization can then be performed on the resulting data set, instead of the original one filled with missing values. Missing values in the resulting table/matrix are reconstructed using the EM algorithm (Dempster, Laird, and Rubin 1977). A non-negativity constraint is added to make sure the reconstructed times are non- negative. Assuming the data has a multivariate Gaussian distribution with mean vector µ and covariance matrix ∑, the EM algorithm provides an estimate of the two parameters µ and ∑ via maximum likelihood. Missing values are imputed using their conditional expectation. In this approach, given a row with available values and x_a missing values x_m, the missing values are imputed by their conditional expectation E(x_m 1_(x_m ) ≥ | x_a) given the available data, where the expected value is computed only over the non-negative values of to ensure the imputed values are non-negative. 33 | The Approach and Methodology In this iteration, arrival and berth hours are aggregated into total port hours, just like in the administrative approach. The data structure after this aggregation for a particular category k (k = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) can be summarized as shown in Table 3.8. TABLE 3.8 • Sample Port Productivity Data Structure by Ship Size SHIP SIZE (K) CALL SIZE BAND (NUMBER OF MOVES) <250 251–500 …... >6,000 PORT- TOTAL PORT- TOTAL PORT- TOTAL TO- PORT TO- PORT TO- PORT PORTS BERTH BERTH HOURS BERTH BERTH HOURS BERTH BERTH HOURS 1 2 3 ... Source: Original table produced for this publication. Why Is Matrix Factorization Useful? Essentially, for each port, quite a few variables contain information about its efficiency. These include average time cost under various categories: (1) different call size bands, and (2) berth/port-to-berth. The reason matrix factorization can be helpful is that these variables are in fact determined by a small number of unobserved factors, which might include quality of infrastructure, expertise of staff, and so on. Depending on the data, very few of such factors can summarize almost all useful information. The challenge lies in the inability to observe those latent factors; however, a simple example could be helpful: Imagine three ports, each with four different types of time cost, as shown in table 3.9. TABLE 3.9 • Sample Illustration of Latent Factors PORT COST 1 COST 2 COST 3 COST 4 A 1 2 3 4 B 2 4 6 8 C 3 6 9 12 Source: Original table produced for this publication. As one can observe, costs 2 to 4 are just some multiples of cost 1. Although we have four variables, to rank the efficiency of these three ports, just one variable is enough (A>B>C). This is an extreme case, but the idea can be generalized if these variables are somehow correlated, but to a less extreme extent. In that case, the factors are computed as some linear combination of costs 1 to 4. Of course, if costs 1 to 4 are completely independent of each other, then this method makes no sense. Fortunately, this is not the case for our data set. Thus, for each port, we can compute its score on all factors and then combine those scores together to reach a final efficiency score. The Approach and Methodology | 34 Note that in the statistical approach using matrix factorization, the scores are not calculated for each call size range. On the contrary, the whole data set, including the smaller ports, is used simultaneously to obtain latent factors. This is in sharp contrast to the administrative approach. The statistical approach factors in all the correlations among hours for various call size bands, which purely from a statistical perspective is more efficient. There is no right or wrong methodology, but the two different approaches are considered complementary. Hence, the decision in this iteration of the CPPI to maintain both approaches, to try and ensure that the resulting ranking(s) of container port performance reflects as closely as possible actual port performance, whilst also being statistically robust. The Statistical Methodology The data are scaled and weighted as in the administrative approach. • Let pij denote average port time of port i in call size j. • Let pavgj denote the average of the average port time of all ports in the given call size. • Let wj denote the ratio of port calls that are in the call size group j The data are scaled by replacing pij by: xij = ( pavg,j − pij ).wi A positive value of xij means the port is doing better than average, whereas a negative value means it is doing worse than average. Let X = (xij) denote the resulting matrix of scaled port time. Assume X has n rows (n ports) and p columns (p call size bands). As in the previous iteration of the CPPI, the matrix X is decomposed as X ≈ WH where W is a n × k matrix and H is an entrywise non-negative k × p matrix. The integer k (the number of columns of W) is chosen to be a small number to compress the data. The matrix W represents factors and the matrix H factor loadings that are used to explain the data X. A number of k = 3 factors was found to be adequate to approximate the data matrix X.  Note: Traditional factor analysis (FA) used in statistical analysis produces a matrix factorization X ≈ WH as above, except that the matrix H does not need to be non-negative. This is a problem since a large positive factor does not necessarily represent a small port time if the corresponding loading is negative. In contrast, our method enforces non-negativity in the loadings matrix H. This approach produces results that are consistent with the administrative approach.  The CPPI for each ship size is obtained by adding the three columns of W. The CPPI index is a weighted sum of these indices: Let CPPIi denote the CPPI index for ship size i (i = 1, . . . ,5). 5 CPPI = ∑ CPPI ⋅ α i =1 i i where (α1, α2, α3, α4, α5) = (0.46, 1.00, 1.54, 1.97, 2.57) 35 | The Approach and Methodology Constructing the CPPI 2023 Index Using a Ranking Aggregation Method The CPPI has in previous iterations utilized two distinct methodologies: the administrative, or technical approach that employs expert knowledge and judgment to produce a practical methodology, and a statistical approach that utilizes factor analysis (FA). CPPI 2022 went a step further to aggregate the two rankings to produce one index that to present the performance of ports via both methodologies, an approach that is continued in CPPI 2023. Borda-Type Approach for Index Aggregation Rank aggregation, that is the process of combining multiple rankings into a single ranking, is an important problem arising in many areas (Langville and Meyer 2012). For example, in a ranked voting system, citizens rank candidates in their order of preference and a single winner needs to be determined. Similarly, recommender systems and search engines can produce many different rankings of items that are likely to be of interest to a given user. Such rankings can naturally be aggregated to produce a more robust list of items (Pappa et al. 2020). Many strategies were proposed in the literature to combine several rankings into one that is as consistent as possible with the individual rankings (Langville and Meyer 2012, Fagin et al. 2003, Dwork et al. 2001, Dwork et al. 2012, Oliveira et al. 2020) and references therein. The Borda count (Langville and Meyer 2012, Chapter 14) provides a simple and effective approach for aggregating rankings, wherein each item to rank is given points according to the number of items it outranks in its segment. These points are added and then used to produce a new ranking. Our approach to combine the administrative and the statistical rankings is inspired by the Borda count, but also considers the index values for attributing the number of points. The process is as follows: First, each index is scaled to take values into the interval [0,1]. This is accomplished by applying the following linear transformation: x m f (x) = − , M−m M−m where m is the minimum value of the index and M the maximum value. Observe that the port with the smallest index is always given a scaled value of 0 and the port with largest index a scaled value of 1. The other ports get a scaled value between 0 and 1. Once the indices are scaled, they are added to produce a combined index. Finally, a ranking is obtained by sorting the ports according to the combined index in decreasing order. Thus, the port with the largest combined index is ranked first and the port with the smallest combined index is ranked last. TABLE 3.10 • An Example of Aggregated Rankings for Four Ports with Randomly Generated Administrative and Statistical Index Values SCALED SCALED ADMINISTRATIVE STATISTICAL ADMINISTRATIVE STATISTICAL COMBINED FINAL PORTS INDEX INDEX INDEX INDEX INDEX RANKING Port 1 1.45 1.97 1.000 1.000 2.000 1 Port 2 1.26 1.21 0.678 0.392 1.070 3 Port 3 1.23 1.31 0.627 0.472 1.099 2 Port 4 0.86 0.72 0.000 0.000 0.000 4 Source: Original table produced for this publication. The Approach and Methodology | 36 For example, the scaled administrative index value of Port 2 (x = 1.26) is computed as follows: the minimum and maximum values of the administrative index are m = 0.86 and M = 1.45. Thus, the scaled value is 1.26 0.86 f (x) = − = 0.678 1.45 − 0.86 1.45 − 0.86 NOTES 1 International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution MSC.74(69) Annex 3. 2 See the International Maritime Organization’s website on “International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974,” (accessed March 2022), at https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ Pages/International-Convention-for-the- Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx. 3 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), under the revised SOLAS 1974 Chapter V (as amended)— Safety of Navigation, section 19.2.415, carriage requirements for shipborne navigational systems and equipment. 4 See ITU’s website on “Technical Characteristics for an Automatic Identification System Using Time Division Multiple Access in the VHF Maritime Mobile Frequency Band,” (accessed November 2021), at https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/m/R- REC-M.1371-5-201402-I!!PDF-E.pdf. 5 It may be a conventional land-based port or a stretch of water designated as an area for transferring cargo or passengers from ship to ship. 6 The precise approach to produce a robust data set is detailed in appendix B. 7 The actual equation is: (Group Average Port Hours/Example Port Hours) x Call Size Group Weight. References Langville, Amy N., and Carl D. Meyer. Who’s# 1?: the Science of Rating and Ranking. Princeton University Press, 2012. Fagin, Ronald, Ravi Kumar, and Dakshinamurthi Sivakumar. Comparing Top k lists. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 17, no. 1 (2003): 134-160. Dwork, Cynthia, Ravi Kumar, Moni Naor, and D. Sivakumar. Rank Aggregation Revisited. (2001): 613-622. Dwork, Cynthia, Ravi Kumar, Moni Naor, and Dandapani Sivakumar. Rank Aggregation Methods for the Web. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 613-622. 2001. Ali, Alnur, and Marina Meilă. Experiments with Kemeny Ranking: What Works When? Mathematical Social Sciences 64, no. 1 (2012): 28-40. Oliveira, Samuel EL, Victor Diniz, Anisio Lacerda, Luiz Merschmanm, and Gisele L. Pappa. Is Rank Aggregation Effective in Recommender Systems? An Experimental Analysis. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 11, no. 2 (2020): 1-26. IALA (International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities). 2005. IALA Guideline 1050: The Management and Monitoring of AIS information. Edition 1.0. Saint Germain: IALA. https://www.iala-aism. org/product/management-and-monitoring-of-ais-information-1050/?download=true. IALA (International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities). 2016. IALA Guideline 1082: An Overview of AIS. Edition 2.0. Saint Germain: IALA. 19. https://www.iala-aism.org/product/an-overview-of- ais-1082/?download=true. 37 | The Approach and Methodology 4. The Container Port Performance Index 2023 Introduction The rankings of container port performance, based on the ranking aggregation approach, are presented in this chapter. The following section presents the rankings for the top 100 best performing container ports, with the full rankings of all ports by both approaches presented in Appendix A. The subsequent sections present a summary by region and port throughput (large, medium, small), so ports in the same region, or with the same throughput within broad categories, can be easily compared. The CPPI 2023 Table 4.1 presents the top 100 in the rankings of container port performance in the CPPI 2023. It reflects the aggregation of the scores from the results from the administrative approach and the statistical approach in the manner described in the previous section. In the aggregate index, the two top-ranked container ports in the CPPI 2023 are Yangshan Port (China) in first place, followed by the Port of Salalah (Oman) in second place. These two ports occupy the same positions in the rankings generated by the constituent approaches. The Port of Salalah was ranked second in both approaches in CPPI 2021, while the Yangshan Port ranked third and fourth in the statistical and administrative approaches, respectively, in CPPI 2021. The Container Port Performance Index 2023 | 38 The top-ranked container ports in the CPPI 2023 are Yangshan Port (China) in first place, followed by the Port of Salalah (Oman) in second place, retaining their ranking from the CPPI 2022. Third place in the CPPI 2023 is occupied by the port of Cartagena, up from 5th place in the CPPI 2022, whilst Tangier- Mediterranean retains it 4th ranking. Tanjung Pelepas improved one position to 5th, Ningbo moved up from 12th in 2022 to 7th in 2023, and Port Said moved from 16th to 10th in 2023. Yokohama fell from 10th and 12th in CPPI 2021 to 15th place in CPPI 2022 is now back to 9th in 2023. Ports moving in the other direction in the top ten: Khalifa port falls from 3rd position in 2022 to 29th position in CPPI 2023. Hamad Port which fell from 8th in 2022 to 11th in 2023. There are 55 new entrants to the CPPI 2023, and several significant gainers in terms of ranking. TABLE 4.1 • The CPPI 2023 PORT NAME OVERALL RANKING PORT NAME OVERALL RANKING YANGSHAN 1 GEMLIK 33 SALALAH 2 BARCELONA 34 CARTAGENA (COLOMBIA) 3 DAMMAM 35 TANGER-MEDITERRANEAN 4 SAVONA-VADO 36 TANJUNG PELEPAS 5 POSORJA 37 CHIWAN 6 FUZHOU 38 CAI MEP 7 ZEEBRUGGE 39 GUANGZHOU 8 COLOMBO 40 YOKOHAMA 9 PIPAVAV 41 ALGECIRAS 10 RIO DE JANEIRO 42 HAMAD PORT 11 KHALIFA BIN SALMAN 43 NINGBO 12 BUENAVENTURA 44 MAWAN 13 LAEM CHABANG 45 DALIAN 14 SHIMIZU 46 HONG KONG 15 KAMARAJAR 47 PORT SAID 16 INCHEON 48 SINGAPORE 17 JEBEL ALI 49 KAOHSIUNG 18 LAZARO CARDENAS 50 VISAKHAPATNAM 19 AARHUS 51 YEOSU 20 DA CHAN BAY TERMINAL ONE 52 TIANJIN 21 CHARLESTON 53 YANTIAN 22 TOKYO 54 TANJUNG PRIOK 23 PHILADELPHIA 55 LIANYUNGANG 24 NAGOYA 56 SHEKOU 25 KATTUPALLI 57 CALLAO 26 JEDDAH 58 MUNDRA 27 JUBAIL 59 PORT KLANG 28 QINZHOU 60 KHALIFA PORT 29 KARACHI 61 KING ABDULLAH PORT 30 KEELUNG 62 XIAMEN 31 COCHIN 63 BUSAN 32 KOBE 64 39 | The Container Port Performance Index 2023 PORT NAME OVERALL RANKING PORT NAME OVERALL RANKING PORT EVERGLADES 65 ZHOUSHAN 83 SOHAR 66 SOUTHAMPTON 84 SALVADOR 67 OSAKA 85 HAZIRA 68 HAIFA 86 LONDON 69 AQABA 87 HAIPHONG 70 BREMERHAVEN 88 KRISHNAPATNAM 71 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE 89 WILHELMSHAVEN 72 MALAGA 90 BEIRUT 73 ROTTERDAM 91 MIAMI 74 NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY 92 BOSTON (USA) 75 JOHOR 93 ANTWERP 76 POINTE-A-PITRE 94 DILISKELESI 77 YOKKAICHI 95 ITAPOA 78 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT 96 PUERTO LIMON 79 CORONEL 97 CHENNAI 80 TRIPOLI (LEBANON) 98 WILMINGTON JACKSONVILLE 99 (USA-N CAROLINA) 81 ALTAMIRA 100 MARSAXLOKK 82 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. The CPPI 2023 shows a great consistency between the two approaches, as in its 2022 edition. In CPPI 2023, more than 40 percent of all ports (162 ports) are ranked within 6 places or less from themselves in the dual rankings, whereas 50 percent of the ports are ranked within 8 places. The consistency between the two approaches contributes significantly to having a well-balanced aggregated index.  Ranking by Region This section presents an overview of the outcomes from the CPPI 2023 report. The first edition of CPPI was modified based on requests for the presentation of results and rankings by region and throughput for an improved comparison of ports within the same region and those with similar throughput. The subsequent sections include a concise tabulation of the results and ranking (from Table 4.2) for the designated regions based on the administrative CPPI. • North America (United States and Canada) • Central America, South America, and the Caribbean Region • West, Central, and South Asia (Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh) • East Asia (Myanmar to Japan) • Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands) • Sub-Saharan Africa • Europe and North Africa The Container Port Performance Index 2023 | 40 TABLE 4.2 • The CPPI by Region: North America PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING PHILADELPHIA NAM 50 CHARLESTON NAM 60 PORT EVERGLADES NAM 63 WILMINGTON (USA-N CAROLINA) NAM 72 BOSTON (USA) NAM 73 MIAMI NAM 77 JACKSONVILLE NAM 83 HALIFAX NAM 95 NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY NAM 99 NEW ORLEANS NAM 133 MOBILE NAM 186 BALTIMORE (USA) NAM 191 PORT TAMPA BAY NAM 214 HONOLULU NAM 219 APRA HARBOR NAM 223 SAINT JOHN NAM 265 HUENEME NAM 277 PORT OF VIRGINIA NAM 306 HOUSTON NAM 327 MONTREAL NAM 351 SEATTLE NAM 356 VANCOUVER (CANADA) NAM 363 LONG BEACH NAM 376 LOS ANGELES NAM 378 OAKLAND NAM 396 PRINCE RUPERT NAM 397 SAVANNAH NAM 398 TACOMA NAM 402 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. TABLE 4.3 • The CPPI by Region: Central America, South America, and the Caribbean Region PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING CARTAGENA (COLOMBIA) LAC 6 SALVADOR LAC 62 CALLAO LAC 26 PUERTO LIMON LAC 79 POSORJA LAC 39 ITAPOA LAC 80 BUENAVENTURA LAC 42 ALTAMIRA LAC 87 RIO DE JANEIRO LAC 45 POINTE-A-PITRE LAC 89 LAZARO CARDENAS LAC 51 CORONEL LAC 91 41 | The Container Port Performance Index 2023 PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING FORT-DE-FRANCE LAC 104 BUENOS AIRES LAC 246 COLON LAC 107 PUERTO QUETZAL LAC 247 RIO GRANDE (BRAZIL) LAC 108 CALDERA (COSTA RICA) LAC 255 VERACRUZ LAC 115 CAUCEDO LAC 257 SAN ANTONIO LAC 116 NASSAU LAC 259 PUERTO BARRIOS LAC 122 CRISTOBAL LAC 261 PARANAGUA LAC 130 MANAUS LAC 267 SUAPE LAC 131 ZARATE LAC 268 SAN JUAN LAC 140 PORT OF SPAIN LAC 272 SANTA MARTA LAC 141 SEPETIBA LAC 279 VALPARAISO LAC 154 VILA DO CONDE LAC 283 RIO HAINA LAC 155 GEORGETOWN (GUYANA) LAC 288 BARRANQUILLA LAC 161 PUERTO CABELLO LAC 298 PUERTO BOLIVAR (ECUADOR) LAC 162 ENSENADA LAC 299 LIRQUEN LAC 164 BALBOA LAC 305 PUERTO PROGRESO LAC 171 ARICA LAC 312 PUERTO CORTES LAC 175 MAZATLAN LAC 314 BASSETERRE LAC 178 SAN VICENTE LAC 315 GUSTAVIA LAC 179 GUAYAQUIL LAC 320 GENERAL SAN MARTIN LAC 183 MANZANILLO (MEXICO) LAC 323 PECEM LAC 184 CORINTO LAC 325 SANTO TOMAS DE CASTILLA LAC 187 TURBO LAC 326 PHILIPSBURG LAC 199 MEJILLONES LAC 331 LA GUAIRA LAC 202 VITORIA LAC 332 POINT LISAS PORTS LAC 210 SANTOS LAC 334 CASTRIES LAC 225 IQUIQUE LAC 357 BRIDGETOWN LAC 232 FREEPORT (BAHAMAS) LAC 359 PORT AU PRINCE LAC 234 MONTEVIDEO LAC 365 BIG CREEK LAC 235 IMBITUBA LAC 374 PAITA LAC 240 ACAJUTLA LAC 377 MARIEL LAC 241 KINGSTON (JAMAICA) LAC 386 PARAMARIBO LAC 243 ITAJAI LAC 393 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. The Container Port Performance Index 2023 | 42 TABLE 4.4 • The CPPI by Region: West, Central, and South Asia (Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh) PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING SALALAH WCSA 2 HAMAD PORT WCSA 10 VISAKHAPATNAM WCSA 18 MUNDRA WCSA 22 KING ABDULLAH PORT WCSA 30 KHALIFA PORT WCSA 32 PIPAVAV WCSA 34 DAMMAM WCSA 37 COLOMBO WCSA 40 KHALIFA BIN SALMAN WCSA 43 KAMARAJAR WCSA 47 KATTUPALLI WCSA 54 COCHIN WCSA 55 KARACHI WCSA 56 JUBAIL WCSA 57 JEBEL ALI WCSA 58 JEDDAH WCSA 64 SOHAR WCSA 66 HAZIRA WCSA 69 AQABA WCSA 70 KRISHNAPATNAM WCSA 75 CHENNAI WCSA 78 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT WCSA 90 SHARJAH WCSA 128 AL DUQM WCSA 135 MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM WCSA 157 SHUAIBA WCSA 160 SHUWAIKH WCSA 212 ADEN WCSA 222 NEW MANGALORE WCSA 231 SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT WCSA 258 UMM QASR WCSA 282 DJIBOUTI WCSA 337 CHATTOGRAM WCSA 339 PORT SUDAN WCSA 388 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. 43 | The Container Port Performance Index 2023 TABLE 4.5 • The CPPI by Region: East Asia (Myanmar to Japan) PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING YANGSHAN EAS 1 CAT LAI EAS 112 TANJUNG PELEPAS EAS 4 SHANGHAI EAS 114 CHIWAN EAS 5 DANANG EAS 118 GUANGZHOU EAS 7 HAKATA EAS 120 CAI MEP EAS 8 MOJI EAS 123 YOKOHAMA EAS 9 SIAM SEAPORT EAS 124 NINGBO EAS 11 TAICHUNG EAS 129 MAWAN EAS 13 BATANGAS EAS 137 DALIAN EAS 14 OMAEZAKI EAS 139 HONG KONG EAS 15 SAIGON EAS 144 YEOSU EAS 17 CHU LAI EAS 147 SINGAPORE EAS 19 CEBU EAS 148 TANJUNG PRIOK EAS 20 QUANZHOU EAS 149 LIANYUNGANG EAS 21 QINGDAO EAS 150 KAOHSIUNG EAS 23 CHIBA EAS 153 YANTIAN EAS 24 TANJUNG EMAS EAS 156 SHEKOU EAS 25 CAGAYAN DE ORO EAS 158 TIANJIN EAS 28 HIBIKINADA EAS 159 PORT KLANG EAS 29 KOMPONG SOM EAS 168 XIAMEN EAS 31 QUY NHON EAS 181 BUSAN EAS 35 PYEONG TAEK EAS 185 FUZHOU EAS 36 PANJANG EAS 190 SHIMIZU EAS 44 MUARA EAS 192 LAEM CHABANG EAS 46 SHIBUSHI EAS 195 INCHEON EAS 48 OITA EAS 218 DA CHAN BAY TERMINAL ONE EAS 49 SUBIC BAY EAS 220 QINZHOU EAS 52 NGHI SON EAS 226 NAGOYA EAS 53 SONGKHLA EAS 236 TOKYO EAS 59 YANGON EAS 238 KEELUNG EAS 61 KUANTAN EAS 239 KOBE EAS 65 GENERAL SANTOS EAS 263 HAIPHONG EAS 67 BANGKOK EAS 278 OSAKA EAS 81 DAVAO EAS 284 YOKKAICHI EAS 86 KOTA KINABALU EAS 290 JOHOR EAS 88 KUCHING EAS 295 ZHOUSHAN EAS 94 PENANG EAS 297 TANJUNG PERAK EAS 105 BELAWAN EAS 300 SHANTOU EAS 106 MANILA EAS 307 NAHA EAS 111 BINTULU EAS 371 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. The Container Port Performance Index 2023 | 44 TABLE 4.6 • The CPPI by Region: Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands) PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING WELLINGTON OCE 100 PAPEETE OCE 166 BELL BAY OCE 215 BLUFF OCE 266 NELSON OCE 271 TIMARU OCE 274 NOUMEA OCE 276 PORT MORESBY OCE 280 OTAGO HARBOUR OCE 296 LAE OCE 311 MELBOURNE OCE 313 NAPIER OCE 336 TAURANGA OCE 343 BRISBANE OCE 348 PORT BOTANY OCE 350 ADELAIDE OCE 352 AUCKLAND OCE 353 FREMANTLE OCE 384 LYTTELTON OCE 385 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. TABLE 4.7 • The CPPI by Region: Sub-Saharan Africa PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING BERBERA SSA 103 MOGADISCIO SSA 176 CONAKRY SSA 208 MALABO SSA 237 FREETOWN SSA 252 BATA SSA 269 TAKORADI SSA 273 TOAMASINA SSA 294 NAMIBE SSA 302 MAYOTTE SSA 303 PORT VICTORIA SSA 304 ONNE SSA 308 LAGOS (NIGERIA) SSA 309 MAPUTO SSA 317 SAN PEDRO (COTE D’IVOIRE) SSA 318 LOME SSA 319 PORT REUNION SSA 324 MOMBASA SSA 335 MONROVIA SSA 340 45 | The Container Port Performance Index 2023 PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING ABIDJAN SSA 342 BEIRA SSA 347 OWENDO SSA 354 NOUAKCHOTT SSA 355 TIN CAN ISLAND SSA 364 NACALA SSA 366 KRIBI DEEP SEA PORT SSA 367 PORT LOUIS SSA 369 DOUALA SSA 372 DAR ES SALAAM SSA 373 TEMA SSA 380 DAKAR SSA 381 WALVIS BAY SSA 382 MATADI SSA 387 PORT ELIZABETH SSA 391 LUANDA SSA 392 POINTE-NOIRE SSA 395 DURBAN SSA 399 COTONOU SSA 401 NGQURA SSA 404 CAPE TOWN SSA 405 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. TABLE 4.8 • The CPPI by Region: Europe and North Africa PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING TANGER-MEDITERRANEAN ENA 3 MARSAXLOKK ENA 92 ALGECIRAS ENA 12 SOUTHAMPTON ENA 93 PORT SAID ENA 16 YARIMCA ENA 96 GEMLIK ENA 27 ROTTERDAM ENA 97 SAVONA-VADO ENA 33 WILHELMSHAVEN ENA 98 ZEEBRUGGE ENA 38 TALLINN ENA 101 BARCELONA ENA 41 TRIPOLI (LEBANON) ENA 102 BEIRUT ENA 68 OSLO ENA 109 AARHUS ENA 71 BREMERHAVEN ENA 110 DILISKELESI ENA 74 IZMIR ENA 113 LONDON ENA 76 HAMBURG ENA 117 ANTWERP ENA 82 HAIFA ENA 119 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE ENA 84 LISBON ENA 121 MALAGA ENA 85 PIRAEUS ENA 125 The Container Port Performance Index 2023 | 46 PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING SINES ENA 126 HERAKLION ENA 227 VIGO ENA 127 SALERNO ENA 228 LAS PALMAS ENA 132 ANCONA ENA 229 ALEXANDRIA (EGYPT) ENA 134 BORDEAUX ENA 230 PORT AKDENIZ ENA 136 PALERMO ENA 233 SOKHNA ENA 138 VOLOS ENA 242 CORK ENA 142 BILBAO ENA 244 KLAIPEDA ENA 143 VARNA ENA 245 BORUSAN ENA 145 RADES ENA 248 MUUGA HARBOUR ENA 146 ALICANTE ENA 249 FREDERICIA ENA 151 NOVOROSSIYSK ENA 250 VALENCIA ENA 152 SEVILLE ENA 251 LIMASSOL ENA 163 TRABZON ENA 253 SAGUNTO ENA 165 BARI ENA 254 HELSINGBORG ENA 167 GHAZAOUET ENA 256 DUNKIRK ENA 169 BATUMI ENA 260 BURGAS ENA 170 KOTKA ENA 262 TARRAGONA ENA 172 GRANGEMOUTH ENA 264 BAR ENA 173 GDYNIA ENA 270 FELIXSTOWE ENA 174 VENICE ENA 275 NORRKOPING ENA 177 AGADIR ENA 281 LATAKIA ENA 180 VLISSINGEN ENA 285 ARRECIFE DE LANZAROTE ENA 182 SAMSUN ENA 286 GIOIA TAURO ENA 188 AMBARLI ENA 287 HUELVA ENA 189 CATANIA ENA 289 RAVENNA ENA 193 RIGA ENA 291 GIJON ENA 194 LEIXOES ENA 292 RAUMA ENA 196 LIVERPOOL (UNITED KINGDOM) ENA 293 CIVITAVECCHIA ENA 197 DUBLIN ENA 301 LARVIK ENA 198 LIVORNO ENA 310 PLOCE ENA 200 KHOMS ENA 316 NEMRUT BAY ENA 201 THESSALONIKI ENA 321 COPENHAGEN ENA 203 GENOA ENA 322 BREST ENA 204 EL DEKHEILA ENA 328 TARTOUS ENA 205 CASABLANCA ENA 329 CADIZ ENA 206 LA SPEZIA ENA 330 FERROL ENA 207 SETUBAL ENA 333 CASTELLON ENA 209 DURRES ENA 338 GAVLE ENA 211 POTI ENA 341 HELSINKI ENA 213 NAPLES ENA 344 GOTHENBURG ENA 216 GDANSK ENA 345 KRISTIANSAND ENA 217 GREENOCK ENA 346 NANTES-ST NAZAIRE ENA 221 ALGIERS ENA 349 TEESPORT ENA 224 KOPER ENA 358 47 | The Container Port Performance Index 2023 PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING MARSEILLE ENA 360 BEJAIA ENA 379 CONSTANTZA ENA 361 LE HAVRE ENA 383 BENGHAZI ENA 362 DAMIETTA ENA 389 BRISTOL ENA 368 ISKENDERUN ENA 390 ASHDOD ENA 370 TRIESTE ENA 394 QASR AHMED ENA 375 RIJEKA ENA 400 MERSIN ENA 403 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. Ranking by Throughput This section presents the CPPI 2023 by throughput. It offers a summary tabulation (from Table 4.9) by throughput using the following defined ranges: • Large: more than 4 million TEUs per year • Medium: between 0.5 million and 4 million TEUs per year • Small: less than 0.5 million TEUs per year The Container Port Performance Index 2023 | 48 TABLE 4.9 • The CPPI by Throughput: Large Ports (More than 4 million TEUs per Year) PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING YANGSHAN Large 1 LAEM CHABANG Large 46 SALALAH Large 2 QINZHOU Large 52 TANGER- JEBEL ALI Large 58 MEDITERRANEAN Large 3 TOKYO Large 59 TANJUNG PELEPAS Large 4 JEDDAH Large 64 CHIWAN Large 5 ANTWERP Large 82 GUANGZHOU Large 7 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CAI MEP Large 8 PORT Large 90 NINGBO Large 11 ZHOUSHAN Large 94 ALGECIRAS Large 12 ROTTERDAM Large 97 NEW YORK & NEW MAWAN Large 13 JERSEY Large 99 DALIAN Large 14 COLON Large 107 HONG KONG Large 15 BREMERHAVEN Large 110 PORT SAID Large 16 CAT LAI Large 112 SINGAPORE Large 19 SHANGHAI Large 114 TANJUNG PRIOK Large 20 HAMBURG Large 117 LIANYUNGANG Large 21 PIRAEUS Large 125 MUNDRA Large 22 SAIGON Large 144 KAOHSIUNG Large 23 QINGDAO Large 150 YANTIAN Large 24 VALENCIA Large 152 SHEKOU Large 25 MANILA Large 307 TIANJIN Large 28 SANTOS Large 334 PORT KLANG Large 29 LONG BEACH Large 376 XIAMEN Large 31 LOS ANGELES Large 378 BUSAN Large 35 SAVANNAH Large 398 COLOMBO Large 40 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. TABLE 4.10 • The CPPI by Throughput: Medium Ports (between 0.5 million and 4 million TEUs per Year) PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING CARTAGENA (COLOMBIA) Medium 6 KHALIFA PORT Medium 32 YOKOHAMA Medium 9 SAVONA-VADO Medium 33 HAMAD PORT Medium 10 PIPAVAV Medium 34 YEOSU Medium 17 FUZHOU Medium 36 VISAKHAPATNAM Medium 18 DAMMAM Medium 37 CALLAO Medium 26 ZEEBRUGGE Medium 38 GEMLIK Medium 27 POSORJA Medium 39 KING ABDULLAH PORT Medium 30 BARCELONA Medium 41 49 | The Container Port Performance Index 2023 PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING BUENAVENTURA Medium 42 PUERTO BARRIOS Medium 122 SHIMIZU Medium 44 SIAM SEAPORT Medium 124 INCHEON Medium 48 SINES Medium 126 DA CHAN BAY TERMINAL ONE Medium 49 TAICHUNG Medium 129 PHILADELPHIA Medium 50 PARANAGUA Medium 130 LAZARO CARDENAS Medium 51 LAS PALMAS Medium 132 NAGOYA Medium 53 NEW ORLEANS Medium 133 KARACHI Medium 56 ALEXANDRIA (EGYPT) Medium 134 JUBAIL Medium 57 SOKHNA Medium 138 CHARLESTON Medium 60 SANTA MARTA Medium 141 KEELUNG Medium 61 KLAIPEDA Medium 143 PORT EVERGLADES Medium 63 MUUGA HARBOUR Medium 146 KOBE Medium 65 QUANZHOU Medium 149 SOHAR Medium 66 VALPARAISO Medium 154 HAIPHONG Medium 67 TANJUNG EMAS Medium 156 BEIRUT Medium 68 MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM Medium 157 AQABA Medium 70 PAPEETE Medium 166 AARHUS Medium 71 KOMPONG SOM Medium 168 KRISHNAPATNAM Medium 75 FELIXSTOWE Medium 174 LONDON Medium 76 PUERTO CORTES Medium 175 MIAMI Medium 77 PYEONG TAEK Medium 185 CHENNAI Medium 78 MOBILE Medium 186 ITAPOA Medium 80 SANTO TOMAS DE CASTILLA Medium 187 OSAKA Medium 81 GIOIA TAURO Medium 188 JACKSONVILLE Medium 83 BALTIMORE (USA) Medium 191 ALTAMIRA Medium 87 NEMRUT BAY Medium 201 JOHOR Medium 88 CONAKRY Medium 208 MARSAXLOKK Medium 92 HELSINKI Medium 213 SOUTHAMPTON Medium 93 GOTHENBURG Medium 216 HALIFAX Medium 95 HONOLULU Medium 219 YARIMCA Medium 96 SUBIC BAY Medium 220 WILHELMSHAVEN Medium 98 SONGKHLA Medium 236 TANJUNG PERAK Medium 105 YANGON Medium 238 SHANTOU Medium 106 BILBAO Medium 244 RIO GRANDE (BRAZIL) Medium 108 VARNA Medium 245 NAHA Medium 111 BUENOS AIRES Medium 246 IZMIR Medium 113 NOVOROSSIYSK Medium 250 VERACRUZ Medium 115 FREETOWN Medium 252 SAN ANTONIO Medium 116 CAUCEDO Medium 257 DANANG Medium 118 SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT Medium 258 HAIFA Medium 119 CRISTOBAL Medium 261 HAKATA Medium 120 KOTKA Medium 262 The Container Port Performance Index 2023 | 50 PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING MANAUS Medium 267 BRISBANE Medium 348 GDYNIA Medium 270 ALGIERS Medium 349 VENICE Medium 275 PORT BOTANY Medium 350 BANGKOK Medium 278 MONTREAL Medium 351 UMM QASR Medium 282 ADELAIDE Medium 352 DAVAO Medium 284 AUCKLAND Medium 353 AMBARLI Medium 287 SEATTLE Medium 356 LEIXOES Medium 292 KOPER Medium 358 LIVERPOOL (UNITED KINGDOM) Medium 293 FREEPORT (BAHAMAS) Medium 359 OTAGO HARBOUR Medium 296 MARSEILLE Medium 360 PENANG Medium 297 CONSTANTZA Medium 361 PUERTO CABELLO Medium 298 VANCOUVER (CANADA) Medium 363 BELAWAN Medium 300 TIN CAN ISLAND Medium 364 DUBLIN Medium 301 MONTEVIDEO Medium 365 BALBOA Medium 305 PORT LOUIS Medium 369 PORT OF VIRGINIA Medium 306 ASHDOD Medium 370 LAGOS (NIGERIA) Medium 309 DOUALA Medium 372 LIVORNO Medium 310 DAR ES SALAAM Medium 373 MELBOURNE Medium 313 TEMA Medium 380 LOME Medium 319 DAKAR Medium 381 GUAYAQUIL Medium 320 LE HAVRE Medium 383 GENOA Medium 322 FREMANTLE Medium 384 MANZANILLO (MEXICO) Medium 323 KINGSTON (JAMAICA) Medium 386 PORT REUNION Medium 324 DAMIETTA Medium 389 HOUSTON Medium 327 ISKENDERUN Medium 390 EL DEKHEILA Medium 328 LUANDA Medium 392 LA SPEZIA Medium 330 ITAJAI Medium 393 MOMBASA Medium 335 TRIESTE Medium 394 DJIBOUTI Medium 337 POINTE-NOIRE Medium 395 CHATTOGRAM Medium 339 OAKLAND Medium 396 MONROVIA Medium 340 PRINCE RUPERT Medium 397 POTI Medium 341 DURBAN Medium 399 ABIDJAN Medium 342 COTONOU Medium 401 TAURANGA Medium 343 TACOMA Medium 402 NAPLES Medium 344 MERSIN Medium 403 GDANSK Medium 345 NGQURA Medium 404 CAPE TOWN Medium 405 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. 51 | The Container Port Performance Index 2023 TABLE 4.11 • The CPPI by Throughput: Small Ports (Less than 0.5 million TEUs per Year) PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING KHALIFA BIN SALMAN Small 43 BARRANQUILLA Small 161 RIO DE JANEIRO Small 45 PUERTO BOLIVAR (ECUADOR) Small 162 KAMARAJAR Small 47 LIMASSOL Small 163 KATTUPALLI Small 54 LIRQUEN Small 164 COCHIN Small 55 SAGUNTO Small 165 SALVADOR Small 62 HELSINGBORG Small 167 HAZIRA Small 69 DUNKIRK Small 169 WILMINGTON (USA-N CAROLINA) Small 72 BURGAS Small 170 BOSTON (USA) Small 73 PUERTO PROGRESO Small 171 DILISKELESI Small 74 TARRAGONA Small 172 PUERTO LIMON Small 79 BAR Small 173 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE Small 84 MOGADISCIO Small 176 MALAGA Small 85 NORRKOPING Small 177 YOKKAICHI Small 86 BASSETERRE Small 178 POINTE-A-PITRE Small 89 GUSTAVIA Small 179 CORONEL Small 91 LATAKIA Small 180 WELLINGTON Small 100 QUY NHON Small 181 TALLINN Small 101 ARRECIFE DE LANZAROTE Small 182 TRIPOLI (LEBANON) Small 102 GENERAL SAN MARTIN Small 183 BERBERA Small 103 PECEM Small 184 FORT-DE-FRANCE Small 104 HUELVA Small 189 OSLO Small 109 PANJANG Small 190 LISBON Small 121 MUARA Small 192 MOJI Small 123 RAVENNA Small 193 VIGO Small 127 GIJON Small 194 SHARJAH Small 128 SHIBUSHI Small 195 SUAPE Small 131 RAUMA Small 196 AL DUQM Small 135 CIVITAVECCHIA Small 197 PORT AKDENIZ Small 136 LARVIK Small 198 BATANGAS Small 137 PHILIPSBURG Small 199 OMAEZAKI Small 139 PLOCE Small 200 SAN JUAN Small 140 LA GUAIRA Small 202 CORK Small 142 COPENHAGEN Small 203 BORUSAN Small 145 BREST Small 204 CHU LAI Small 147 TARTOUS Small 205 CEBU Small 148 CADIZ Small 206 FREDERICIA Small 151 FERROL Small 207 CHIBA Small 153 CASTELLON Small 209 RIO HAINA Small 155 POINT LISAS PORTS Small 210 CAGAYAN DE ORO Small 158 GAVLE Small 211 HIBIKINADA Small 159 SHUWAIKH Small 212 SHUAIBA Small 160 PORT TAMPA BAY Small 214 The Container Port Performance Index 2023 | 52 PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING BELL BAY Small 215 NOUMEA Small 276 KRISTIANSAND Small 217 HUENEME Small 277 OITA Small 218 SEPETIBA Small 279 NANTES-ST NAZAIRE Small 221 PORT MORESBY Small 280 ADEN Small 222 AGADIR Small 281 APRA HARBOR Small 223 VILA DO CONDE Small 283 TEESPORT Small 224 VLISSINGEN Small 285 CASTRIES Small 225 SAMSUN Small 286 NGHI SON Small 226 GEORGETOWN (GUYANA) Small 288 HERAKLION Small 227 CATANIA Small 289 SALERNO Small 228 KOTA KINABALU Small 290 ANCONA Small 229 RIGA Small 291 BORDEAUX Small 230 TOAMASINA Small 294 NEW MANGALORE Small 231 KUCHING Small 295 BRIDGETOWN Small 232 ENSENADA Small 299 PALERMO Small 233 NAMIBE Small 302 PORT AU PRINCE Small 234 MAYOTTE Small 303 BIG CREEK Small 235 PORT VICTORIA Small 304 MALABO Small 237 ONNE Small 308 KUANTAN Small 239 LAE Small 311 PAITA Small 240 ARICA Small 312 MARIEL Small 241 MAZATLAN Small 314 VOLOS Small 242 SAN VICENTE Small 315 PARAMARIBO Small 243 KHOMS Small 316 PUERTO QUETZAL Small 247 MAPUTO Small 317 RADES Small 248 SAN PEDRO (COTE D'IVOIRE) Small 318 ALICANTE Small 249 THESSALONIKI Small 321 SEVILLE Small 251 CORINTO Small 325 TRABZON Small 253 TURBO Small 326 BARI Small 254 CASABLANCA Small 329 CALDERA (COSTA RICA) Small 255 MEJILLONES Small 331 GHAZAOUET Small 256 VITORIA Small 332 NASSAU Small 259 SETUBAL Small 333 BATUMI Small 260 NAPIER Small 336 GENERAL SANTOS Small 263 DURRES Small 338 GRANGEMOUTH Small 264 GREENOCK Small 346 SAINT JOHN Small 265 BEIRA Small 347 BLUFF Small 266 OWENDO Small 354 ZARATE Small 268 NOUAKCHOTT Small 355 BATA Small 269 IQUIQUE Small 357 NELSON Small 271 BENGHAZI Small 362 PORT OF SPAIN Small 272 NACALA Small 366 TAKORADI Small 273 KRIBI DEEP SEA PORT Small 367 TIMARU Small 274 BRISTOL Small 368 53 | The Container Port Performance Index 2023 PORT NAME REGION OVERALL PORT NAME REGION OVERALL RANKING RANKING BINTULU Small 371 LYTTELTON Small 385 IMBITUBA Small 374 MATADI Small 387 QASR AHMED Small 375 PORT SUDAN Small 388 ACAJUTLA Small 377 PORT ELIZABETH Small 391 BEJAIA Small 379 RIJEKA Small 400 WALVIS BAY Small 382 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. The Container Port Performance Index 2023 | 54 5 5. Conclusions and Next Steps The primary objective of developing the CPPI by utilizing existing empirical data was to create an impartial benchmark to assess and compare container port performance across different ports, over time. This was done to facilitate the identification of gaps and opportunities for improvement in a standardized manner, which could ultimately benefit all stakeholders, including shipping lines, national governments, and consumers. The CPPI was intended to serve as a crucial point of reference for various stakeholders in the global economy, such as port authorities and operators, national governments, development agencies, supranational organizations, and other public and private entities involved in trade, logistics, and supply chain services. In the future, the CPPI is expected to undergo further refinement in subsequent editions, incorporating stakeholder feedback, advancements in data scope and quality, and additional trend analysis. The World Bank-S&P Global Market Intelligence team will continue to improve the methodologies, expand the scope by potentially including more ports, and enhance the data. The next version, CPPI 2024, will be comparable to the current edition, facilitating trend analysis of container port performance across the aggregate index. Specifically, subsequent releases will also contain indices aggregated from the statistical and administrative approaches. CPPI 2023 considers the dissimilarities between the two approaches while simultaneously gaining a deeper understanding of the vital factors that affect container port performance. The goal remains to identify opportunities for improvement to benefit all stakeholders, including ports, shipping lines, governments, line agencies, businesses, and consumers. 55 | Conclusions and Next Steps Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 TABLE A.1 • Aggregated Rankings Using Borda-type Approach OVERALL OVERALL PORT NAME PORT NAME RANKING RANKING YANGSHAN 1 VISAKHAPATNAM 19 SALALAH 2 YEOSU 20 CARTAGENA (COLOMBIA) 3 TIANJIN 21 TANGER-MEDITERRANEAN 4 YANTIAN 22 TANJUNG PELEPAS 5 TANJUNG PRIOK 23 CHIWAN 6 LIANYUNGANG 24 CAI MEP 7 SHEKOU 25 GUANGZHOU 8 CALLAO 26 YOKOHAMA 9 MUNDRA 27 ALGECIRAS 10 PORT KLANG 28 HAMAD PORT 11 KHALIFA PORT 29 NINGBO 12 KING ABDULLAH PORT 30 MAWAN 13 XIAMEN 31 DALIAN 14 BUSAN 32 HONG KONG 15 GEMLIK 33 PORT SAID 16 BARCELONA 34 SINGAPORE 17 DAMMAM 35 KAOHSIUNG 18 SAVONA-VADO 36 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 56 OVERALL OVERALL PORT NAME PORT NAME RANKING RANKING POSORJA 37 WILMINGTON (USA-N CAROLINA) 81 FUZHOU 38 MARSAXLOKK 82 ZEEBRUGGE 39 ZHOUSHAN 83 COLOMBO 40 SOUTHAMPTON 84 PIPAVAV 41 OSAKA 85 RIO DE JANEIRO 42 HAIFA 86 KHALIFA BIN SALMAN 43 AQABA 87 BUENAVENTURA 44 BREMERHAVEN 88 LAEM CHABANG 45 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE 89 SHIMIZU 46 MALAGA 90 KAMARAJAR 47 ROTTERDAM 91 INCHEON 48 NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY 92 JEBEL ALI 49 JOHOR 93 LAZARO CARDENAS 50 POINTE-A-PITRE 94 AARHUS 51 YOKKAICHI 95 DA CHAN BAY TERMINAL ONE 52 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT 96 CHARLESTON 53 CORONEL 97 TOKYO 54 TRIPOLI (LEBANON) 98 PHILADELPHIA 55 JACKSONVILLE 99 NAGOYA 56 ALTAMIRA 100 KATTUPALLI 57 TANJUNG PERAK 101 JEDDAH 58 COLON 102 JUBAIL 59 PARANAGUA 103 QINZHOU 60 PIRAEUS 104 KARACHI 61 OSLO 105 KEELUNG 62 BERBERA 106 COCHIN 63 RIO GRANDE (BRAZIL) 107 KOBE 64 HALIFAX 108 PORT EVERGLADES 65 TALLINN 109 SOHAR 66 SAN ANTONIO 110 SALVADOR 67 CAT LAI 111 HAZIRA 68 WELLINGTON 112 LONDON 69 SHANTOU 113 HAIPHONG 70 FORT-DE-FRANCE 114 KRISHNAPATNAM 71 DANANG 115 WILHELMSHAVEN 72 SHANGHAI 116 BEIRUT 73 HAKATA 117 MIAMI 74 IZMIR 118 BOSTON (USA) 75 QINGDAO 119 ANTWERP 76 SIAM SEAPORT 120 DILISKELESI 77 HAMBURG 121 ITAPOA 78 SOKHNA 122 PUERTO LIMON 79 SHARJAH 123 CHENNAI 80 VERACRUZ 124 57 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 OVERALL OVERALL PORT NAME PORT NAME RANKING RANKING PUERTO BARRIOS 125 BAR 169 TAICHUNG 126 SANTO TOMAS DE CASTILLA 170 MOJI 127 DUNKIRK 171 VIGO 128 ALEXANDRIA (EGYPT) 172 YARIMCA 129 MOBILE 173 NAHA 130 TARRAGONA 174 PORT AKDENIZ 131 PUERTO PROGRESO 175 SAIGON 132 PAPEETE 176 BATANGAS 133 NORRKOPING 177 LISBON 134 PUERTO CORTES 178 SINES 135 PECEM 179 LAS PALMAS 136 BASSETERRE 180 SAN JUAN 137 GUSTAVIA 181 CHU LAI 138 FELIXSTOWE 182 KLAIPEDA 139 GIOIA TAURO 183 OMAEZAKI 140 PYEONG TAEK 184 SANTA MARTA 141 ARRECIFE DE LANZAROTE 185 VALENCIA 142 PANJANG 186 CEBU 143 GENERAL SAN MARTIN 187 BORUSAN 144 QUY NHON 188 SUAPE 145 BALTIMORE (USA) 189 MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM 146 RAUMA 190 RIO HAINA 147 RAVENNA 191 QUANZHOU 148 HUELVA 192 CORK 149 CAUCEDO 193 TANJUNG EMAS 150 MUARA 194 VALPARAISO 151 LA GUAIRA 195 CAGAYAN DE ORO 152 LATAKIA 196 BARRANQUILLA 153 CONAKRY 197 MUUGA HARBOUR 154 COPENHAGEN 198 CHIBA 155 SHIBUSHI 199 FREDERICIA 156 CIVITAVECCHIA 200 LIMASSOL 157 BELL BAY 201 AL DUQM 158 LARVIK 202 HIBIKINADA 159 BRIDGETOWN 203 LIRQUEN 160 GIJON 204 SHUAIBA 161 POINT LISAS PORTS 205 BURGAS 162 PLOCE 206 HELSINGBORG 163 TARTOUS 207 PUERTO BOLIVAR (ECUADOR) 164 SHUWAIKH 208 SAGUNTO 165 CADIZ 209 MOGADISCIO 166 TEESPORT 210 NEW ORLEANS 167 FERROL 211 KOMPONG SOM 168 PHILIPSBURG 212 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 58 OVERALL OVERALL PORT NAME PORT NAME RANKING RANKING CASTELLON 213 KOTKA 257 HELSINKI 214 NOVOROSSIYSK 258 BREST 215 CALDERA (COSTA RICA) 259 KRISTIANSAND 216 BLUFF 260 BORDEAUX 217 SAINT JOHN 261 SALERNO 218 NANTES-ST NAZAIRE 262 PORT TAMPA BAY 219 BATUMI 263 PORT AU PRINCE 220 TIMARU 264 CASTRIES 221 ZARATE 265 OITA 222 PORT OF SPAIN 266 HERAKLION 223 GENERAL SANTOS 267 HONOLULU 224 NELSON 268 VOLOS 225 BUENOS AIRES 269 FREETOWN 226 VENICE 270 SUBIC BAY 227 BATA 271 SONGKHLA 228 GDYNIA 272 PUERTO QUETZAL 229 BANGKOK 273 BILBAO 230 TAKORADI 274 PARAMARIBO 231 KUANTAN 275 NGHI SON 232 AMBARLI 276 RADES 233 RIGA 277 APRA HARBOR 234 HUENEME 278 NEW MANGALORE 235 DAVAO 279 CRISTOBAL 236 NEMRUT BAY 280 ADEN 237 KOTA KINABALU 281 ALICANTE 238 UMM QASR 282 BIG CREEK 239 SEPETIBA 283 VARNA 240 SAMSUN 284 PALERMO 241 NOUMEA 285 SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT 242 ENSENADA 286 PAITA 243 VILA DO CONDE 287 MALABO 244 AGADIR 288 ANCONA 245 PORT MORESBY 289 SEVILLE 246 LEIXOES 290 MARIEL 247 KUCHING 291 TRABZON 248 OTAGO HARBOUR 292 GOTHENBURG 249 VLISSINGEN 293 YANGON 250 SANTOS 294 GAVLE 251 PUERTO CABELLO 295 GRANGEMOUTH 252 LIVERPOOL (UNITED KINGDOM) 296 NASSAU 253 CATANIA 297 GHAZAOUET 254 GEORGETOWN (GUYANA) 298 BARI 255 PENANG 299 MANAUS 256 TOAMASINA 300 59 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 OVERALL OVERALL PORT NAME PORT NAME RANKING RANKING PORT OF VIRGINIA 301 ADELAIDE 345 DUBLIN 302 ALGIERS 346 NAMIBE 303 TAURANGA 347 PORT VICTORIA 304 MONTREAL 348 ONNE 305 POTI 349 LIVORNO 306 AUCKLAND 350 MAYOTTE 307 SETUBAL 351 BELAWAN 308 IQUIQUE 352 LAGOS (NIGERIA) 309 ABIDJAN 353 MANILA 310 MARSEILLE 354 MELBOURNE 311 CONSTANTZA 355 HOUSTON 312 VANCOUVER (CANADA) 356 SAN VICENTE 313 OWENDO 357 BALBOA 314 NOUAKCHOTT 358 GUAYAQUIL 315 FREEPORT (BAHAMAS) 359 ARICA 316 SEATTLE 360 KHOMS 317 BENGHAZI 361 LOME 318 KOPER 362 GENOA 319 NACALA 363 PORT REUNION 320 TIN CAN ISLAND 364 SAN PEDRO (COTE D’IVOIRE) 321 BRISTOL 365 MAZATLAN 322 KRIBI DEEP SEA PORT 366 TURBO 323 DAR ES SALAAM 367 PORT BOTANY 324 QASR AHMED 368 MAPUTO 325 PORT LOUIS 369 LAE 326 DOUALA 370 THESSALONIKI 327 BINTULU 371 MOMBASA 328 LE HAVRE 372 LA SPEZIA 329 LONG BEACH 373 CORINTO 330 FREMANTLE 374 MANZANILLO (MEXICO) 331 LOS ANGELES 375 CASABLANCA 332 TEMA 376 MEJILLONES 333 IMBITUBA 377 CHATTOGRAM 334 KINGSTON (JAMAICA) 378 VITORIA 335 DJIBOUTI 379 NAPIER 336 WALVIS BAY 380 BRISBANE 337 DAKAR 381 GREENOCK 338 BEJAIA 382 NAPLES 339 ACAJUTLA 383 BEIRA 340 MONTEVIDEO 384 EL DEKHEILA 341 LYTTELTON 385 DURRES 342 MATADI 386 GDANSK 343 DAMIETTA 387 MONROVIA 344 PORT SUDAN 388 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 60 OVERALL OVERALL PORT NAME PORT NAME RANKING RANKING LUANDA 389 DURBAN 398 ASHDOD 390 PRINCE RUPERT 399 PORT ELIZABETH 391 RIJEKA 400 ISKENDERUN 392 TACOMA 401 ITAJAI 393 COTONOU 402 POINTE-NOIRE 394 MERSIN 403 SAVANNAH 395 NGQURA 404 TRIESTE 396 CAPE TOWN 405 OAKLAND 397 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. TABLE A.2 • The CPPI 2023 (the Administrative Approach) RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME YANGSHAN 1 177.90 3,509 24 3 6 3 3 1 0 SALALAH 2 164.72 1,146   42 7 1 4 2 0 TANGER-MEDITERRANEAN 3 159.56 3,150 142 59 12 7 2 5 2 TANJUNG PELEPAS 4 158.32 3,655 42 61 28 11 1 6 2 CHIWAN 5 158.17 948 51 24 15 6 12 23 18 CARTAGENA (COLOMBIA) 6 158.02 1,586 38 17 26 12 7 4 −2 GUANGZHOU 7 153.72 1,761 47 56 17 4 14 9 2 CAI MEP 8 150.81 924 16 6 5 46 13 13 5 YOKOHAMA 9 150.47 1,355 12 5 75 22 5 12 3 HAMAD PORT 10 149.78 291   12 4 16 16 8 −2 NINGBO 11 145.40 4,411 68 28 18 19 21 7 −4 ALGECIRAS 12 142.34 2,061 85 46 39 15 18 18 6 MAWAN 13 142.19 507 79 70 21 10 25 15 2 DALIAN 14 138.97 754 128 119 81 9 6 44 30 HONG KONG 15 134.05 3,849 36 40 44 18 28 10 −5 PORT SAID 16 131.17 1,132 104 112 66 32 10 11 −5 YEOSU 17 130.69 546 15 38 33 49 26 21 4 VISAKHAPATNAM 18 129.63 96   27 76 20 17 112 94 SINGAPORE 19 127.88 6,949 184 89 54 48 11 19 0 TANJUNG PRIOK 20 127.28 879 46 168 68 40 8 282 262 LIANYUNGANG 21 126.54 235   64 34 29 24 77 56 MUNDRA 22 124.83 827 33 90 97 23 22 50 28 61 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME KAOHSIUNG 23 123.05 2,742 53 43 24 30 36 26 3 YANTIAN 24 121.56 2,714 150 74 70 43 20 51 27 SHEKOU 25 121.06 939 86 93 56 13 34 14 −11 CALLAO 26 119.67 1,074 78 113 55 27 29 43 17 GEMLIK 27 119.08 803 87 53 35 21 37 130 103 TIANJIN 28 118.73 963 27 124 58 25 30 25 −3 PORT KLANG 29 116.43 3,054 134 84 45 35 31 36 7 KING ABDULLAH PORT 30 114.20 132 281 4 3   9 16 −14 XIAMEN 31 112.81 2,318 206 134 92 24 27 32 1 KHALIFA PORT 32 112.32 1,086 228 136 90 33 19 3 −29 SAVONA-VADO 33 107.76 248 125 73 106 75 15 59 26 PIPAVAV 34 106.00 276   2 1 2   31 −3 BUSAN 35 104.84 5,165 83 75 57 70 33 22 −13 FUZHOU 36 103.79 171   34 2 37 55 38 2 DAMMAM 37 103.62 341 26 36 49 58 41 33 −4 ZEEBRUGGE 38 103.21 166 130 100 89 8 42 68 30 POSORJA 39 103.06 232   16 20 53 43 17 −22 COLOMBO 40 102.57 2,009 185 137 60 39 35 29 −11 BARCELONA 41 101.11 1,571 110 78 25 42 46 35 −6 BUENAVENTURA 42 99.56 529   44 38 26 47 20 −22 KHALIFA BIN SALMAN 43 95.02 147 10 21 14 14   73 30 SHIMIZU 44 94.45 374 17 15 13 17   46 2 RIO DE JANEIRO 45 94.40 616 158 25 43 82 40 66 21 LAEM CHABANG 46 86.54 1,376 94 79 72 56 51 27 −19 KAMARAJAR 47 85.61 110   8 9 28   80 33 INCHEON 48 80.73 311 7 26 46 31   34 −14 DA CHAN BAY TERMINAL ONE 49 79.27 214 23 62 8 64   61 12 PHILADELPHIA 50 78.25 546 202 19 19 36   93 43 LAZARO CARDENAS 51 77.02 744 70 99 74 44 64 37 −14 QINZHOU 52 74.35 91 131 106 94 5   New New NAGOYA 53 74.04 1,201 25 11 48 60   48 −5 KATTUPALLI 54 74.04 157 22 10 50 59   82 28 COCHIN 55 74.00 42   58 23 34   84 29 KARACHI 56 73.27 306   122 83 57 54 85 29 JUBAIL 57 73.09 176   71 78 61 59 65 8 JEBEL ALI 58 72.29 2,143 4 186 77 66 60 40 −18 TOKYO 59 72.12 1,101 40 39 51 54   54 −5 CHARLESTON 60 70.58 1,174 122 102 91 86 49 341 281 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 62 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME KEELUNG 61 70.31 739 60 60 73 41   67 6 SALVADOR 62 70.14 406   68 29 38   115 53 PORT EVERGLADES 63 69.74 546 55 51 65 52   89 26 JEDDAH 64 64.91 1,579 274 237 107 62 39 28 −36 KOBE 65 63.75 1,182 5 13 52 87   47 −18 SOHAR 66 63.33 192   52 37 80 71 45 −21 HAIPHONG 67 62.31 733 136 148 53 45   138 71 BEIRUT 68 62.09 621 96 103 61 90 63 318 250 HAZIRA 69 61.96 140   18 40 73   86 17 AQABA 70 60.43 209 21 20 99 85 72 57 −13 AARHUS 71 60.40 174 82 35 161   32 96 25 WILMINGTON (USA-N CAROLINA) 72 60.38 189   125 114 51 62 41 −31 BOSTON (USA) 73 59.98 138   49 63 63   63 −10 DILISKELESI 74 59.50 145 63 48 93 69   74 250 KRISHNAPATNAM 75 58.11 69 100 7 10     71 −4 LONDON 76 56.84 1,476 141 72 96 77 70 289 213 MIAMI 77 55.99 427 59 23 104 76   207 130 CHENNAI 78 54.77 79 61 121 80 71   107 29 PUERTO LIMON 79 54.04 461 11 45 16     87 8 ITAPOA 80 53.38 484   80 67 72   69 −11 OSAKA 81 50.89 570 8 32 32     79 −2 ANTWERP 82 49.89 3,486 205 176 124 95 53 76 −6 JACKSONVILLE 83 49.63 112   67 98 98 66 83 0 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE 84 47.35 279 14 41   68   75 −9 MALAGA 85 46.22 106 74 96 27     111 26 YOKKAICHI 86 45.93 260   22 22     98 12 ALTAMIRA 87 43.47 687 179 164 117 55   55 −32 JOHOR 88 43.25 183 91 98 36     90 2 POINTE-A-PITRE 89 43.18 251 112 57 47     97 8 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT 90 42.79 991 326 141 59 47 23 91 1 CORONEL 91 42.65 185   55   103 58 30 −61 MARSAXLOKK 92 42.62 1,501 267 220 147 67 50 42 −50 SOUTHAMPTON 93 41.55 522 72 155 137 117 52 222 129 ZHOUSHAN 94 38.79 395   189 169 84 44 78 −16 HALIFAX 95 38.14 298 139 85 105 108 77 286 191 YARIMCA 96 38.13 571 99 129 119 102 74 39 191 ROTTERDAM 97 38.07 2,863 243 197 127 83 61 267 −57 WILHELMSHAVEN 98 37.65 285 198 110 102 149 38 145 170 63 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY 99 36.45 1,335 180 140 79 94 82 309 47 WELLINGTON 100 36.02 101 98 128 62     148 210 TALLINN 101 35.93 91 58 179 41     185 48 TRIPOLI (LEBANON) 102 35.61 125 226 153   50   205 84 BERBERA 103 35.55 82 44 104 85     146 103 FORT-DE-FRANCE 104 35.49 182 191 144 31     94 43 TANJUNG PERAK 105 35.42 454 76 92 84     99 −10 SHANTOU 106 35.14 217 49 108 86     64 −6 COLON 107 33.36 1,365 169 123 64 99 83 95 −42 RIO GRANDE (BRAZIL) 108 32.81 401   118 88 109   52 −12 OSLO 109 32.50 98 56 1       160 −56 BREMERHAVEN 110 31.96 1,238 108 158 139 124 56 60 −50 NAHA 111 28.99 29     11     101 −10 CAT LAI 112 28.88 1,017 6 14       110 −2 IZMIR 113 28.69 251 159 131 87     149 36 SHANGHAI 114 28.01 2,672 90 187 113 105   218 104 VERACRUZ 115 27.96 508 157 107 103     104 −11 SAN ANTONIO 116 27.53 387   147 101 118 67 265 149 HAMBURG 117 27.42 2,122 196 190 121 107 69 328 211 DANANG 118 26.62 267 9 37       116 −2 HAIFA 119 26.62 764 148 195 131 100 75 58 −61 HAKATA 120 26.29 370 28 29       108 −12 LISBON 121 25.92 78 213 215 42     220 99 PUERTO BARRIOS 122 25.85 301 39 31       117 −5 MOJI 123 25.41 115 43 33       135 12 SIAM SEAPORT 124 25.12 356 19 50       72 −52 PIRAEUS 125 24.46 1,440 244 227 153 111 48 53 −72 SINES 126 24.05 49     118 101 68 202 76 VIGO 127 23.73 388 48 54       140 13 SHARJAH 128 23.60 59 30 63       120 −8 TAICHUNG 129 23.48 516 29 65       125 −4 PARANAGUA 130 23.33 778   150 167 126 45 70 −60 SUAPE 131 23.32 290   114 100 119   176 45 LAS PALMAS 132 22.79 155 20 82       New New NEW ORLEANS 133 22.41 412   232 138 74   137 4 ALEXANDRIA (EGYPT) 134 21.83 329 249 296 82 79   270 136 AL DUQM 135 21.58 30   66 123 120   New New PORT AKDENIZ 136 21.49 119 34 95       131 −5 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 64 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME BATANGAS 137 21.28 185 75 76       128 −9 SOKHNA 138 20.76 163 146 172 125 113 78 277 139 OMAEZAKI 139 20.61 45   9       126 −13 SAN JUAN 140 20.13 201 88 86       134 −6 SANTA MARTA 141 19.94 214 84 94       127 −14 CORK 142 19.84 52 92 88       New New KLAIPEDA 143 19.70 257 54 109       191 48 PORT AKDENIZ 136 21.49 119 34 95         131 HAIFA 119 26.62 764 148 195 131 100 75   58 HAKATA 120 26.29 370 28 29         108 LISBON 121 25.92 78 213 215 42       220 SAIGON 144 19.47 234 57 111       121 −23 BORUSAN 145 19.43 81 45 117       173 28 MUUGA HARBOUR 146 19.02 54 80 146 136     New New CHU LAI 147 18.40 92 71 120       163 16 CEBU 148 18.38 130 50 127       143 −5 QUANZHOU 149 18.35 45   30       New New QINGDAO 150 18.09 2,985 161 160 140 138 57 214 64 FREDERICIA 151 17.96 74 93 116       153 2 VALENCIA 152 17.60 945 160 194 141 104 76 302 150 CHIBA 153 17.22 38   47       New New VALPARAISO 154 16.77 272   77   114   189 35 RIO HAINA 155 16.63 141 95 130       159 4 TANJUNG EMAS 156 16.16 177 32 157       136 −20 MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM 157 15.70 524 77 87 95 143   88 −69 CAGAYAN DE ORO 158 15.38 180 69 152       165 7 HIBIKINADA 159 15.28 43 62 156       New New SHUAIBA 160 15.28 166 188 97       119 −41 BARRANQUILLA 161 15.20 85 116 132       169 8 PUERTO BOLIVAR (ECUADOR) 162 15.06 85   69       142 −20 LIMASSOL 163 14.90 198 106 142       100 −63 LIRQUEN 164 14.89 53   135 110 129   124 −40 SAGUNTO 165 14.62 32   81       New New PAPEETE 166 13.71 66 64 91 163     141 −25 HELSINGBORG 167 13.64 104 153 133       150 −17 KOMPONG SOM 168 13.46 181 154 138       New New DUNKIRK 169 13.02 298 114 101 126 96 90 308 139 BURGAS 170 12.82 109 109 162       174 4 65 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME PUERTO PROGRESO 171 12.39 70 129 159       157 −14 TARRAGONA 172 11.98 46 144 154       285 113 BAR 173 11.36 99 127 169       151 −22 FELIXSTOWE 174 11.20 545 277 292 108 89 79 262 88 PUERTO CORTES 175 11.19 461 149 163       92 −83 MOGADISCIO 176 11.05 78 101 182       225 49 NORRKOPING 177 10.81 89 232 126       182 5 BASSETERRE 178 10.39 32 1         New New GUSTAVIA 179 10.36 91 2         171 −8 LATAKIA 180 9.84 86 162 170       180 0 QUY NHON 181 9.76 135 263 105       139 −42 ARRECIFE DE LANZAROTE 182 9.68 33 3         New New GENERAL SAN MARTIN 183 9.52 45   143       New New PECEM 184 9.39 325 271 225 69 130   105 −79 PYEONG TAEK 185 8.98 84   149       New New MOBILE 186 8.92 416 234 145 132 127   245 59 SANTO TOMAS DE CASTILLA 187 8.87 161 176 173       250 63 GIOIA TAURO 188 8.80 75 37   175 91   133 −55 HUELVA 189 8.31 36 18         New New PANJANG 190 8.07 89 66 226       230 40 BALTIMORE (USA) 191 7.85 420   161 145 116   301 110 MUARA 192 7.53 29   167       New New RAVENNA 193 7.37 273 123 202       167 −26 GIJON 194 7.27 119 102 216       123 −71 SHIBUSHI 195 7.15 38 52         New New RAUMA 196 7.01 99 204 181       201 5 CIVITAVECCHIA 197 6.38 43 145 203       187 −10 LARVIK 198 6.21 59 81         183 −15 PHILIPSBURG 199 6.17 107 117 223       162 −37 PLOCE 200 6.12 49 97 239       New New NEMRUT BAY 201 5.86 1,069 111 139 109 144 80 103 −98 LA GUAIRA 202 5.74 122 135 218       215 13 COPENHAGEN 203 5.24 68 105         186 −17 BREST 204 5.12 50 133 230       177 −27 TARTOUS 205 4.83 25 115         New New CADIZ 206 4.62 62 119         161 −45 FERROL 207 4.54 85 121         New New CONAKRY 208 4.40 213 168 221       196 −12 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 66 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME CASTELLON 209 4.21 30   193       New New POINT LISAS PORTS 210 4.19 50 132         244 34 GAVLE 211 4.05 104 164 228       249 38 SHUWAIKH 212 4.03 209   196       152 −60 HELSINKI 213 3.92 124 166 229       223 10 PORT TAMPA BAY 214 3.82 126   83 142 136   129 −85 BELL BAY 215 3.58 29 107 247       192 −23 GOTHENBURG 216 3.49 272 171 180 134 65 93 113 −103 KRISTIANSAND 217 3.38 35 151         200 −17 OITA 218 3.36 38 152         New New HONOLULU 219 3.21 41 288 185 130     New New SUBIC BAY 220 3.00 138 223 206       198 −22 NANTES-ST NAZAIRE 221 2.97 161 220 260 129     147 −74 ADEN 222 2.84 34 73 307 122     266 44 APRA HARBOR 223 2.63 37   208       188 −35 TEESPORT 224 2.46 221 138 244       240 16 CASTRIES 225 2.46 29 173         New New NGHI SON 226 2.23 34   211       New New HERAKLION 227 2.20 30 177         195 −32 SALERNO 228 1.93 235 156 207 157     156 −72 ANCONA 229 1.89 153 200 238       166 −63 BORDEAUX 230 1.72 31 190         212 −18 NEW MANGALORE 231 1.50 25   222       New New BRIDGETOWN 232 1.48 52 199         New New PALERMO 233 1.44 39 216 235       194 −39 PORT AU PRINCE 234 0.87 34 212         New New BIG CREEK 235 0.65 24 140 256       New New SONGKHLA 236 0.52 46 194 243       New New MALABO 237 0.45 33   236       New New YANGON 238 0.31 213 189 246       New New KUANTAN 239 0.29 52 258 201       New New PAITA 240 0.14 220 41 115 30 166   102 −138 MARIEL 241 0.09 45 225         208 −33 VOLOS 242 0.03 24 227         New New PARAMARIBO 243 (0.08) 30 229         New New BILBAO 244 (0.18) 325 181 231 156     206 −38 VARNA 245 (0.62) 66 187 251       237 −8 BUENOS AIRES 246 (0.64) 266   166 143 139 73 168 −78 67 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME PUERTO QUETZAL 247 (0.83) 327 35 174 173 123   118 −129 RADES 248 (0.94) 177 236         209 −39 ALICANTE 249 (0.98) 54 172 262       227 −22 NOVOROSSIYSK 250 (1.00) 68 207 249       181 −69 SEVILLE 251 (1.16) 38 241         New New FREETOWN 252 (1.44) 161 113 277       221 −31 TRABZON 253 (1.85) 24 250         New New BARI 254 (2.18) 47 203 261       179 −75 CALDERA (COSTA RICA) 255 (2.19) 155 273 213       213 −42 GHAZAOUET 256 (3.22) 41 264         New New CAUCEDO 257 (3.29) 799 245 177 133 106 87 158 −99 SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT 258 (3.37) 59 266         New New NASSAU 259 (3.48) 152 167 278       224 −35 BATUMI 260 (3.77) 61 175 276       236 −24 CRISTOBAL 261 (3.79) 762 302 240 154 93   306 45 KOTKA 262 (3.84) 81 183 275       226 −36 GENERAL SANTOS 263 (4.01) 69 118 295       New New GRANGEMOUTH 264 (4.02) 72 270         New New SAINT JOHN 265 (4.07) 181   264       233 −32 BLUFF 266 (4.16) 38   266       190 −76 MANAUS 267 (4.99) 150 186 285       234 −33 ZARATE 268 (5.65) 45   273       New New BATA 269 (5.70) 35 215 283       New New GDYNIA 270 (6.54) 360 163 165 135 88 95 235 −35 NELSON 271 (6.67) 85 193 294       204 −67 PORT OF SPAIN 272 (6.90) 185 253 270       242 −30 TAKORADI 273 (8.03) 41 296 219       239 −34 TIMARU 274 (8.27) 48 278 253       247 −27 VENICE 275 (8.92) 191 211 298       254 −21 NOUMEA 276 (9.93) 105 89 325       122 −154 HUENEME 277 (10.38) 42   301       243 −34 BANGKOK 278 (10.62) 341 143 314       246 −32 SEPETIBA 279 (11.21) 102   175   142   197 −82 PORT MORESBY 280 (11.71) 57 284 268       New New AGADIR 281 (12.12) 98 285 267       256 −25 ALICANTE 249 (0.98) 54 172 262       227 −22 NOVOROSSIYSK 250 (1.00) 68 207 249       181 −69 SEVILLE 251 (1.16) 38 241         New New Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 68 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME FREETOWN 252 (1.44) 161 113 277       221 −31 TRABZON 253 (1.85) 24 250         New New UMM QASR 282 (12.29) 201   272 162     170 −112 VILA DO CONDE 283 (13.02) 178 295 263       199 −84 DAVAO 284 (13.04) 300 170 323       253 −31 VLISSINGEN 285 (13.33) 24 13 281 181     New New SAMSUN 286 (13.57) 41 259 303       New New AMBARLI 287 (13.87) 817 247 198 146 110 86 56 −231 GEORGETOWN (GUYANA) 288 (14.67) 93 257 308       New New CATANIA 289 (14.78) 60 233 315       193 −96 KOTA KINABALU 290 (14.87) 37 230 317       New New RIGA 291 (15.04) 198 126 279 177     248 −43 LEIXOES 292 (15.14) 239 256 311       172 −120 LIVERPOOL (UNITED KINGDOM) 293 (15.19) 169 155 224 186     New New TOAMASINA 294 (16.08) 138 137 335       231 −63 KUCHING 295 (16.41) 46 246 320       New New OTAGO HARBOUR 296 (17.18) 186 67 242 194     278 −18 PENANG 297 (17.45) 258 293 191 179     81 −216 PUERTO CABELLO 298 (17.70) 104 235 330       261 −37 ENSENADA 299 (18.41) 149   300 158 125   109 −190 BELAWAN 300 (18.41) 159 269 319       217 −83 DUBLIN 301 (19.01) 132 217 334       258 −43 NAMIBE 302 (19.10) 30 201 339       New New MAYOTTE 303 (19.60) 66 272 322       269 −34 PORT VICTORIA 304 (20.08) 75   336       251 −53 BALBOA 305 (21.80) 1,593 311 178 191 112 65 62 −243 PORT OF VIRGINIA 306 (24.02) 1,436   184 149 132 85 49 −257 MANILA 307 (25.48) 1,063 237 305 178     333 26 ONNE 308 (25.66) 105 197 280 188     304 −4 LAGOS (NIGERIA) 309 (26.83) 241   289 185     263 −46 LIVORNO 310 (27.36) 350 147 183 148 159   311 1 LAE 311 (28.52) 54 275 344       272 −39 ARICA 312 (29.76) 134   205   156   232 −80 MELBOURNE 313 (30.86) 773 240 199 195 133   276 −37 MAZATLAN 314 (30.97) 43 222 350       New New SAN VICENTE 315 (31.64) 75   271   151   260 −55 KHOMS 316 (32.34) 85 251 349       New New MAPUTO 317 (33.24) 87 291 345       252 −65 69 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME SAN PEDRO (COTE D’IVOIRE) 318 (33.73) 76 289 346       296 −22 LOME 319 (34.21) 182   284 200     319 0 GUAYAQUIL 320 (34.39) 667 31 204 172 157 81 280 −40 THESSALONIKI 321 (34.90) 317 308 299 170     320 −1 GENOA 322 (35.00) 867 209 257 152 134 88 321 −1 MANZANILLO (MEXICO) 323 (35.41) 1,067 305 209 111 115 94 264 −59 PORT REUNION 324 (35.48) 299 238 214 155 158   300 −24 CORINTO 325 (35.62) 134   353       257 −68 TURBO 326 (37.29) 46 283 348       New New HOUSTON 327 (37.49) 904 120 192 171 162   338 11 EL DEKHEILA 328 (38.66) 260 210 293 187 137   144 −184 CASABLANCA 329 (39.80) 253 239 306 199     155 −174 LA SPEZIA 330 (40.02) 153 306 255 120 122 92 334 4 MEJILLONES 331 (40.12) 111   321   150   273 −58 VITORIA 332 (40.48) 56 103 358       175 −157 SETUBAL 333 (41.45) 82 309 347       New New SANTOS 334 (41.91) 1,189 279 234 176 128 84 114 −220 MOMBASA 335 (44.11) 445 294 309 193     325 −10 NAPIER 336 (44.14) 172 248 313 202     322 −14 DJIBOUTI 337 (44.20) 293 165 210 150 81 105 24 −313 DURRES 338 (44.58) 72 252 356       255 −83 CHATTOGRAM 339 (44.85) 402 301 351       310 −29 MONROVIA 340 (48.90) 82 300 354       271 −69 POTI 341 (49.55) 161 280 357       287 −54 ABIDJAN 342 (51.05) 471 319 297 182     335 −7 TAURANGA 343 (51.91) 489 261 324 204 121   324 −19 NAPLES 344 (52.11) 120 124 200 203 154   274 −70 GDANSK 345 (52.30) 366 195 265 71 97 106 292 −53 GREENOCK 346 (53.24) 104 178 269 212     New New BEIRA 347 (55.09) 159 182 217 217     229 −118 BRISBANE 348 (57.38) 657 231 212 151 170   288 −60 ALGIERS 349 (57.64) 66 292 361       New New PORT BOTANY 350 (60.79) 807 276 258 192 152   303 −47 MONTREAL 351 (61.38) 184   328 207     295 −56 ADELAIDE 352 (61.86) 229   241 183 167   279 −73 AUCKLAND 353 (63.31) 252 297 318 205     323 −30 OWENDO 354 (63.87) 125 290 365       275 −79 NOUAKCHOTT 355 (67.48) 154 310 362       331 −24 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 70 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME SEATTLE 356 (70.74) 145   259 166 155 91 293 −63 IQUIQUE 357 (71.15) 194   252   175   281 −76 KOPER 358 (71.84) 462 218 291 116 140 102 346 −12 FREEPORT (BAHAMAS) 359 (72.23) 145 65 286 206 153   317 −42 MARSEILLE 360 (75.41) 552 221 171 160 164 96 228 −132 CONSTANTZA 361 (76.47) 256 286 254   173   299 −62 BENGHAZI 362 (77.03) 36 282 367       New New VANCOUVER (CANADA) 363 (77.93) 302   250 159 169 89 349 −14 TIN CAN ISLAND 364 (80.99) 160 298 338 211     312 −52 MONTEVIDEO 365 (84.20) 472 316 245 112 78 107 305 −60 NACALA 366 (84.93) 27 321 363       New New KRIBI DEEP SEA PORT 367 (87.52) 189 303 342 213     326 −41 BRISTOL 368 (90.96) 76 174 316 220     New New PORTLOUIS 369 (93.36) 464 287 326 144 146 98 330 −39 ASHDOD 370 (95.97) 445 208 282 165 145 104 307 −63 BINTULU 371 (98.50) 33 323 364       New New DOUALA 372 (98.50) 215 318 369       297 −75 DAR ES SALAAM 373 (101.93) 180 260 372       316 −57 IMBITUBA 374 (103.88) 106   151 115 185   106 −268 QASR AHMED 375 (106.97) 174 265 343 221     298 −77 LONG BEACH 376 (109.28) 224 214 304 214 92 101 348 −28 ACAJUTLA 377 (110.97) 134 325 359       284 −93 LOS ANGELES 378 (113.92) 675   274 168 163 103 337 −41 BEJAIA 379 (114.13) 64 315 370       259 −120 TEMA 380 (116.09) 651 312 310 174 148 97 219 −161 DAKAR 381 (116.78) 437 314 360 208     184 −197 WALVIS BAY 382 (124.73) 128   340 215 168   294 −88 LE HAVRE 383 (127.64) 960 224 188 189 171 99 329 −54 FREMANTLE 384 (129.16) 295   333 198 178   313 −71 LYTTELTON 385 (130.07) 232 320 312 222     314 −71 KINGSTON (JAMAICA) 386 (130.25) 1,108 262 290 164 135 108 268 −118 MATADI 387 (138.31) 165 313 374       178 −209 PORT SUDAN 388 (143.70) 26 322 371       New New DAMIETTA 389 (145.98) 535 307 329 197 161 100 154 −235 ISKENDERUN 390 (152.74) 166 317 302 225 131   290 −100 PORT ELIZABETH 391 (178.48) 105   331 218 180   291 −100 LUANDA 392 (183.22) 340 242 341 209 184   339 −53 ITAJAI 393 (206.07) 312 219 337 201 160 110 238 −155 71 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 RANK PER SHIP SIZE RANGE INDEX POINTS TOTAL CALLS 8,501−13,500 5,001−8,500 1,501−5,000 CHANGE >13,500 <1,500 RANK 2022 PORT NAME TRIESTE 394 (210.60) 380 192 233 128 183 109 342 −52 POINTE-NOIRE 395 (216.26) 489 304 352 219 181   315 −80 OAKLAND 396 (221.87) 595 254 248 190 172 111 345 −51 PRINCE RUPERT 397 (225.43) 117   327 180 147 114 344 −53 SAVANNAH 398 (231.20) 1,305 255 288 184 174 112 350 −48 DURBAN 399 (278.01) 499 299 366 226 177   343 −56 RIJEKA 400 (302.92) 214 268 287 216 165 115 336 −64 COTONOU 401 (325.70) 313 327 355 223 182   332 −69 TACOMA 402 (330.92) 121     224 176 113 327 −75 MERSIN 403 (354.42) 673 324 368 196 141 116 132 −271 NGQURA 404 (573.28) 252   332 210 179 117 340 −64 CAPE TOWN 405 (716.62) 196   373 227 186   347 −58 Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. TABLE A.3 • The CPPI 2023 (the Statistical Approach) PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE YANGSHAN 1 85.04 1 0 CARTAGENA (COLOMBIA) 2 78.61 6 −4 TANGER-MEDITERRANEAN 3 77.78 4 −1 TANJUNG PELEPAS 4 77.14 5 −1 CHIWAN 5 76.88 24 −19 SALALAH 6 76.84 2 4 CAI MEP 7 74.83 12 −5 GUANGZHOU 8 73.15 9 −1 ALGECIRAS 9 71.62 13 −4 YOKOHAMA 10 70.16 17 −7 MAWAN 11 69.45 14 −3 NINGBO 12 69.17 8 4 DALIAN 13 68.52 42 −29 HONG KONG 14 67.71 11 3 HAMAD PORT 15 67.37 7 8 KAOHSIUNG 16 65.28 23 −7 SINGAPORE 17 64.06 18 −1 TIANJIN 18 63.70 16 2 PORT SAID 19 63.21 10 9 VISAKHAPATNAM 20 62.29 122 −102 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 72 PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE YANTIAN 21 60.63 56 −35 YOSU 22 59.28 CALLAO 23 85.04 29 −6 SHEKOU 24 58.01 15 9 LIANYUNGANG 25 57.21 92 −67 TANJUNG PRIOK 26 57.03 281 −255 KHALIFA PORT 27 55.28 3 24 PORT KLANG 28 54.68 35 −7 MUNDRA 29 53.50 46 −17 BARCELONA 30 53.45 33 −3 BUSAN 31 52.74 22 9 KING ABDULLAH PORT 32 51.87 19 13 DAMMAM 33 51.59 32 1 XIAMEN 34 50.84 34 0 POSORJA 35 49.85 20 15 SAVONA-VADO 36 49.43 74 −38 FUZHOU 37 48.63 38 −1 ZEEBRUGGE 38 48.11 59 −21 COLOMBO 39 47.54 27 12 GEMLIK 40 46.50 97 −57 PIPAVAV 41 43.18 31 10 AARHUS 42 40.38 91 −49 LAEM CHABANG 43 40.25 28 15 RIO DE JANEIRO 44 39.54 68 −24 KHALIFA BIN SALMAN 45 38.77 76 −31 JEBEL ALI 46 37.59 37 9 BUENAVENTURA 47 36.41 21 26 LAZARO CARDENAS 48 35.49 47 1 SHIMIZU 49 35.24 50 −1 CHARLESTON 50 35.24 341 −291 JEDDAH 51 34.62 30 21 WILHELMSHAVEN 52 34.55 110 −58 INCHEON 53 34.49 39 14 KAMARAJAR 54 34.07 75 −21 TOKYO 55 33.90 53 2 NAGOYA 56 31.95 44 12 DA CHAN BAY TERMINAL ONE 57 31.74 63 −6 KATTUPALLI 58 31.19 69 −11 KOBE 59 30.82 41 18 PHILADELPHIA 60 30.48 105 −45 HAIFA 61 30.27 51 10 JUBAIL 62 29.95 52 10 KEELUNG 63 29.85 73 −10 KARACHI 64 29.28 84 −20 73 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE QINZHOU 65 29.27 SOHAR 66 29.11 65 1 HAZIRA 67 28.75 81 −14 PORT EVERGLADES 68 27.79 85 −17 LONDON 69 27.78 184 −115 ANTWERP 70 26.92 62 8 ZHOUSHAN 71 26.88 60 11 COCHIN 72 26.78 90 −18 MIAMI 73 26.36 230 −157 MARSAXLOKK 74 26.31 40 34 KRISHNAPATNAM 75 26.23 64 11 BREMERHAVEN 76 26.02 61 15 SALVADOR 77 25.88 124 −47 SOUTHAMPTON 78 25.56 247 −169 HAIPHONG 79 25.42 140 −61 ITAPOA 80 24.13 58 22 BEIRUT 81 23.82 323 −242 BOSTON (USA) 82 23.79 70 12 PUERTO LIMON 83 23.65 83 0 CHENNAI 84 22.51 114 −30 PARANAGUA 85 22.28 77 8 DILISKELESI 86 22.12 78 8 OSAKA 87 21.29 80 7 PIRAEUS 88 21.08 49 39 NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY 89 20.28 304 −215 ROTTERDAM 90 19.76 264 −174 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE 91 19.16 72 19 WILMINGTON (USA-N CAROLINA) 92 19.14 45 47 MALAGA 93 18.71 102 −9 SAN ANTONIO 94 18.39 246 −152 COLON 95 18.11 66 29 TRIPOLI (LEBANON) 96 17.73 233 −137 OSLO 97 17.52 171 −74 TANJUNG PERAK 98 17.43 94 4 JOHOR 99 17.25 89 10 POINTE-A-PITRE 100 17.22 95 5 RIO GRANDE (BRAZIL) 101 17.08 48 53 QINGDAO 102 16.98 129 −27 CAT LAI 103 16.65 108 −5 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT 104 16.63 71 33 BERBERA 105 16.16 143 −38 YOKKAICHI 106 15.73 107 −1 SOKHNA 107 15.51 258 −151 DANANG 108 15.45 117 −9 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 74 PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE AQABA 109 15.41 67 42 CORONEL 110 15.29 36 74 TALLINN 111 15.06 SHANGHAI 112 14.72 215 −103 HALIFAX 113 14.58 276 −163 HAKATA 114 14.12 109 5 ALTAMIRA 115 14.05 54 61 SIAM SEAPORT 116 14.00 79 37 SHARJAH 117 13.61 130 −13 TAICHUNG 118 13.26 123 −5 SHANTOU 119 13.00 86 33 WELLINGTON 120 12.94 161 −41 IZMIR 121 12.91 127 −6 VIGO 122 12.90 135 −13 SAIGON 123 12.80 119 4 HAMBURG 124 12.74 325 −201 FORT-DE-FRANCE 125 12.62 96 29 PUERTO BARRIOS 126 12.37 121 5 PORT AKDENIZ 127 12.29 120 7 MOJI 128 12.26 137 −9 SAN JUAN 129 11.75 125 4 VERACRUZ 130 11.60 98 32 JACKSONVILLE 131 11.59 82 49 BATANGAS 132 11.50 CHU LAI 133 11.49 153 −20 MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM 134 11.25 87 47 VALENCIA 135 11.18 303 −168 KLAIPEDA 136 10.85 193 −57 CEBU 137 10.77 142 −5 SANTA MARTA 138 10.73 131 7 LAS PALMAS 139 10.66 OMAEZAKI 140 10.47 134 6 RIO HAINA 141 10.32 158 −17 SINES 142 10.20 176 −34 BORUSAN 143 10.08 163 −20 TANJUNG EMAS 144 9.73 128 16 NAHA 145 9.66 112 33 CAGAYAN DE ORO 146 9.58 151 −5 QUANZHOU 147 9.56 LISBON 148 9.41 219 −71 VALPARAISO 149 9.31 188 −39 BARRANQUILLA 150 9.30 166 −16 CAUCEDO 151 9.07 148 3 CORK 152 8.82 75 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE LIMASSOL 153 8.43 111 42 MOGADISCIO 154 8.41 225 −71 SUAPE 155 8.34 185 −30 CHIBA 156 8.33 BURGAS 157 8.20 196 −39 FREDERICIA 158 7.99 152 6 HELSINGBORG 159 7.84 157 2 LIRQUEN 160 7.75 154 6 HIBIKINADA 161 7.71 MUUGA HARBOUR 162 7.63 SANTO TOMAS DE CASTILLA 163 7.57 271 −108 SHUAIBA 164 7.42 118 46 PUERTO BOLIVAR (ECUADOR) 165 7.22 145 20 SAGUNTO 166 7.01 MOBILE 167 6.74 235 −68 BAR 168 6.70 167 1 KOMPONG SOM 169 6.37 YARIMCA 170 6.06 43 127 DUNKIRK 171 5.79 320 −149 PECEM 172 5.69 144 28 TARRAGONA 173 5.43 287 −114 RAUMA 174 5.27 192 −18 AL DUQM 175 5.27 NORRKOPING 176 5.23 180 −4 PANJANG 177 5.09 228 −51 CONAKRY 178 5.08 181 −3 PUERTO PROGRESO 179 5.05 168 11 BALTIMORE (USA) 180 5.05 301 −121 RAVENNA 181 4.99 155 26 GIOIA TAURO 182 4.96 115 67 PUERTO CORTES 183 4.94 93 90 BASSETERRE 184 4.88 PYEONG TAEK 185 4.88 GUSTAVIA 186 4.86 165 21 LA GUAIRA 187 4.79 212 −25 BRIDGETOWN 188 4.73 ARRECIFE DE LANZAROTE 189 4.53 HUELVA 190 4.50 GENERAL SAN MARTIN 191 4.46 COPENHAGEN 192 4.42 189 3 PAPEETE 193 4.37 136 57 QUY NHON 194 4.34 146 48 FELIXSTOWE 195 4.24 268 −73 MUARA 196 4.22 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 76 PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE BELL BAY 197 4.09 190 7 TEESPORT 198 3.18 234 −36 SHIBUSHI 199 3.15 NEW ORLEANS 200 3.13 104 96 POINT LISAS PORTS 201 3.12 223 −22 SANTOS 202 3.11 116 86 LATAKIA 203 3.06 174 29 CIVITAVECCHIA 204 3.01 186 18 LARVIK 205 2.91 175 30 SHUWAIKH 206 2.62 133 73 BORDEAUX 207 2.38 213 −6 TARTOUS 208 2.35 PORT AU PRINCE 209 2.31 CADIZ 210 2.29 149 61 SALERNO 211 2.21 169 42 GIJON 212 2.18 138 74 PLOCE 213 2.09 CRISTOBAL 214 2.02 308 −94 FREETOWN 215 1.98 231 −16 FERROL 216 1.93 HELSINKI 217 1.82 222 −5 CASTELLON 218 1.80 KRISTIANSAND 219 1.74 201 18 ALEXANDRIA (EGYPT) 220 1.50 266 −46 CASTRIES 221 1.38 VOLOS 222 1.37 PUERTO QUETZAL 223 1.37 141 82 HERAKLION 224 1.29 200 24 RADES 225 1.20 207 18 PHILIPSBURG 226 1.19 172 54 PORT TAMPA BAY 227 1.12 156 71 BREST 228 1.05 SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT 229 1.04 BILBAO 230 1.03 209 21 SONGKHLA 231 1.00 PARAMARIBO 232 0.87 OITA 233 0.85 ALICANTE 234 0.67 226 8 HONOLULU 235 0.24 VARNA 236 0.12 244 −8 GRANGEMOUTH 237 0.10 NEW MANGALORE 238 0.08 SUBIC BAY 239 −0.01 187 52 NGHI SON 240 −0.12 77 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE NASSAU 241 −0.21 232 9 BIG CREEK 242 −0.28 APRA HARBOR 243 −0.35 205 38 MANAUS 244 −0.44 238 6 PAITA 245 −0.46 101 144 SEVILLE 246 −0.50 GHAZAOUET 247 −0.56 MALABO 248 −0.68 TRABZON 249 −0.68 ADEN 250 −0.82 262 −12 PALERMO 251 −0.96 197 54 MARIEL 252 −1.05 208 44 KOTKA 253 −1.06 224 29 BARI 254 −1.36 199 55 ANCONA 255 −1.60 150 105 YANGON 256 −1.63 TIMARU 257 −1.88 255 2 BLUFF 258 −1.98 191 67 SAINT JOHN 259 −2.07 236 23 VENICE 260 −2.29 242 18 PORT OF SPAIN 261 −2.60 237 24 CALDERA (COSTA RICA) 262 −2.63 211 51 NOVOROSSIYSK 263 −2.93 206 57 GOTHENBURG 264 −2.95 132 132 NELSON 265 −3.01 202 63 ZARATE 266 −3.05 GAVLE 267 −3.24 251 16 BATUMI 268 −3.59 229 39 RIGA 269 −3.70 218 51 GENERAL SANTOS 270 −3.90 AMBARLI 271 −3.92 57 214 ENSENADA 272 −4.11 100 172 BANGKOK 273 −4.13 243 30 GDYNIA 274 −4.30 217 57 KOTA KINABALU 275 −4.31 BATA 276 −4.55 PORT BOTANY 277 −4.62 295 −18 DAVAO 278 −4.95 254 24 TAKORADI 279 −5.43 249 30 UMM QASR 280 −5.46 160 120 NANTES-ST NAZAIRE 281 −5.66 162 119 SAMSUN 282 −5.67 BUENOS AIRES 283 −5.71 177 106 SEPETIBA 284 −5.95 170 114 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 78 PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE HUENEME 285 −5.95 239 46 HOUSTON 286 −6.33 334 −48 PORT OF VIRGINIA 287 −6.51 55 232 OTAGO HARBOUR 288 −6.77 279 9 LEIXOES 289 −6.92 173 116 KUCHING 290 −7.00 PUERTO CABELLO 291 −7.21 252 39 LIVORNO 292 −7.26 311 −19 NOUMEA 293 −7.49 126 167 VILA DO CONDE 294 −7.53 183 111 ONNE 295 −7.74 299 −4 AGADIR 296 −7.96 253 43 LIVERPOOL (UNITED KINGDOM) 297 −8.32 PORT MORESBY 298 −8.34 VLISSINGEN 299 −8.63 DUBLIN 300 −8.67 260 40 CATANIA 301 −8.70 195 106 PENANG 302 −8.79 103 199 MELBOURNE 303 −8.82 273 30 GEORGETOWN (GUYANA) 304 −9.21 KUANTAN 305 −9.23 NAMIBE 306 −9.57 TOAMASINA 307 −9.79 227 80 PORT VICTORIA 308 −9.80 250 58 LAGOS (NIGERIA) 309 −9.97 261 48 SAN VICENTE 310 −10.24 256 54 MANILA 311 −10.66 329 −18 MAYOTTE 312 −11.78 267 45 GUAYAQUIL 313 −11.81 286 27 BELAWAN 314 −12.31 216 98 GENOA 315 −12.74 313 2 PORT REUNION 316 −12.78 297 19 LOME 317 −12.85 316 1 NEMRUT BAY 318 −12.95 99 219 KHOMS 319 −13.14 ARICA 320 −13.92 241 79 SAN PEDRO (COTE D’IVOIRE) 321 −14.22 300 21 TURBO 322 −14.26 MOMBASA 323 −14.42 328 −5 MAZATLAN 324 −15.57 LA SPEZIA 325 −16.28 333 −8 BALBOA 326 −16.34 88 238 BRISBANE 327 −16.34 283 44 MAPUTO 328 −16.79 245 83 79 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE THESSALONIKI 329 −17.65 321 8 ADELAIDE 330 −18.35 280 50 CASABLANCA 331 −18.46 159 172 MEJILLONES 332 −18.53 274 58 BEIRA 333 −18.56 221 112 GREENOCK 334 −18.84 LAE 335 −19.22 277 58 NAPLES 336 −19.51 270 66 CHATTOGRAM 337 −19.54 306 31 CORINTO 338 −19.55 263 75 MANZANILLO (MEXICO) 339 −19.77 296 43 NAPIER 340 −20.24 322 18 GDANSK 341 −21.13 282 59 VITORIA 342 −21.72 164 178 ALGIERS 343 −22.17 MONTREAL 344 −22.25 289 55 DURRES 345 −23.42 259 86 IQUIQUE 346 −23.54 284 62 MONROVIA 347 −23.63 MARSEILLE 348 −23.75 220 128 AUCKLAND 349 −24.29 326 23 CONSTANTZA 350 −24.63 294 56 TAURANGA 351 −24.70 327 24 VANCOUVER (CANADA) 352 −25.61 347 5 EL DEKHEILA 353 −25.77 198 155 POTI 354 −29.63 293 61 FREEPORT (BAHAMAS) 355 −32.19 318 37 ABIDJAN 356 −33.36 332 24 NOUAKCHOTT 357 −33.93 331 26 OWENDO 358 −34.76 278 80 SETUBAL 359 −35.79 BRISTOL 360 −36.07 NACALA 361 −36.23 SEATTLE 362 −37.12 269 93 BENGHAZI 363 −37.91 TIN CAN ISLAND 364 −39.36 305 59 KOPER 365 −41.03 345 20 KRIBI DEEP SEA PORT 366 −43.79 324 42 QASR AHMED 367 −44.44 307 60 DAR ES SALAAM 368 −46.11 312 56 LE HAVRE 369 −46.18 314 55 FREMANTLE 370 −47.47 310 60 KINGSTON (JAMAICA) 371 −49.82 265 106 PORT LOUIS 372 −50.27 319 53 Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 80 PORT NAME 2023 RANK INDEX POINTS 2022 RANK CHANGE DOUALA 373 −51.29 298 75 TEMA 374 −54.14 182 192 BINTULU 375 −54.36 LOS ANGELES 376 −54.78 336 40 LONG BEACH 377 −55.13 346 31 WALVIS BAY 378 −56.42 292 86 IMBITUBA 379 −59.75 113 266 DAKAR 380 −60.70 204 176 LUANDA 381 −62.04 337 44 BEJAIA 382 −63.63 257 125 LYTTELTON 383 −65.16 315 68 DAMIETTA 384 −67.40 194 190 ACAJUTLA 385 −68.15 290 95 MATADI 386 −70.05 210 176 PORT ELIZABETH 387 −70.37 291 96 PORT SUDAN 388 −70.84 ITAJAI 389 −79.94 240 149 ISKENDERUN 390 −81.49 272 118 MONTEVIDEO 391 −82.21 302 89 POINTE−NOIRE 392 −83.82 317 75 SAVANNAH 393 −84.91 348 45 DJIBOUTI 394 −86.33 26 368 TRIESTE 395 −94.47 340 55 ASHDOD 396 −103.02 285 111 OAKLAND 397 −107.22 343 54 DURBAN 398 −120.48 339 59 TACOMA 399 −139.77 309 90 RIJEKA 400 −143.14 335 65 PRINCE RUPERT 401 −153.28 342 59 COTONOU 402 −163.93 330 72 MERSIN 403 −181.10 106 297 CAPE TOWN 404 −280.99 344 60 NGQURA 405 −291.61 338 67 389 (145.98) Source: Original table produced for this publication, based on CPPI 2023 data. Notes 1 International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution MSC.74(69) Annex 3. 2 See the International Maritime Organization’s website on “International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974,” (accessed March 2022), at https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at- Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx. 3 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), under the revised SOLAS 1974 Chapter V (as amended)—Safety of Navigation, section 19.2.415, carriage requirements for shipborne navigational systems and equipment. 81 | Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 4 See ITU’s website on “Technical Characteristics for an Automatic Identification System Using Time Division Multiple Access in the VHF Maritime Mobile Frequency Band,” (accessed November 2021), at https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/m/R​ -REC-M.1371-5-201402-I!!PDF-E.pdf. 5 It may be a conventional land-based port or a stretch of water designated as an area for transferring cargo or passengers from ship to ship. 6 The precise approach to produce a robust data set is detailed in appendix B. 7 The actual equation is: (Group Average Port Hours/Example Port Hours) x Call Size Group Weight. References Dempster, A. P., N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. 1977. “Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 39 (1): 1–22. https://doi​ .org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x. IALA (International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities). 2005. IALA Guideline 1050: The Management and Monitoring of AIS information. Edition 1.0. Saint Germain: IALA. https://www.iala-aism​ .org/product/management-and-monitoring-of-ais-information-1050/?download=true. IALA (International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities). 2016. IALA Guideline 1082: An Overview of AIS. Edition 2.0. Saint Germain: IALA. 19. https://www.iala-aism. org/product/an-overview-of​ -ais-1082/?download=true. Appendix A: The CPPI 2023 | 82