Pe 6

Public Disclosure Authorized
TRANSPORT GLOBAL PRACTICE
The Container Port

PERFORMANCE INDEX 2023

A COMPARABLE ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE
BASED ON VESSEL TIME IN PORT
© 2022 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /
International Development Association or The World Bank
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 (Fine).” 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: [email protected].
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
Table 3.10 • An Example of Aggregated Rankings for Four Ports with Randomly Generated
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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
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.

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
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

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
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
00
00
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

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
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
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


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
00
00
00
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
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.

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%
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.

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%
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%

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
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.

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
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

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
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

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
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

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.

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
...
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
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.

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)

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

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.
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.

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
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

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
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

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

TABLE 4.4 • The CPPI by Region: West, Central, and South Asia (Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh)
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

TABLE 4.5 • The CPPI by Region: East Asia (Myanmar to Japan)
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

TABLE 4.6 • The CPPI by Region: Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands)

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
TABLE 4.7 • The CPPI by Region: Sub-Saharan Africa

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

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
TABLE 4.8 • The CPPI by Region: Europe and North Africa

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

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

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
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

TABLE 4.9 • The CPPI by Throughput: Large Ports (More than 4 million TEUs per Year)
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
TABLE 4.10 • The CPPI by Throughput: Medium Ports (between 0.5 million and 4 million TEUs per Year)

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

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

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

TABLE 4.11 • The CPPI by Throughput: Small Ports (Less than 0.5 million TEUs per Year)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)
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
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.
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.
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.

Pe 6

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pe 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pe 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Disclosure Authorized

TRANSPORT GLOBAL PRACTICE

The Container Port

PERFORMANCE INDEX 2023

Rights and Permissions

Abbreviations and Acronyms...................................................................................................................................iv

2. The Port Performance Program......................................................................................................................... 13

3. The Approach and Methodology...................................................................................................................... 25

4. The Container Port Performance Index 2023................................................................................................. 38

5. Conclusions and Next Steps.............................................................................................................................. 55

Appendix A: The CPPI 2023................................................................................................................................... 56

COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019

CPPI Container Port Performance Index

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

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

Nicolas Peltier-Thiberge Jenny Paurys

TABLE E.1 • The CPPI 2023: Global Ranking of Container Ports

Port Name Overall Ranking Port Name Overall Ranking

POSORJA 37 PUERTO LIMON 79

HAMBURG 121 HELSINGBORG 163

POINT LISAS PORTS 205 MARIEL 247

PORT MORESBY 289 MANZANILLO (MEXICO) 331

LONG BEACH 373 ASHDOD 390

13 | The Port Performance Program

The Port Performance Program

The Automatic Identification System and Port Zoning

The Port Performance Program | 14

The Anatomy of a Port Call

15 | The Port Performance Program

FIGURE 2.1 • The Anatomy of a Port Call

Arrival Port All Lines

2 Steam in Time Port Limit to All Lines Fast.

Source: Original figure produced for this publication.

The Port Performance Program | 16

FIGURE 2.2 • In-Port Time Consumption

17 | The Port Performance Program

FIGURE 2.3 • Global Average Arrival Time Development 2022-2023

11.50 11.33 11.35

The Port Performance Program | 18

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

19 | The Port Performance Program

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

The Significance of Call Size