Port performance and trade facilitation are integral to ensuring

the efficiency of maritime transport. Recent port performance

indicators and data indicate that world ports have, for the most

4
part, fared well during the recent global supply chain crises
and disruptions. They have embarked on a path of recovery,
supported by policy reforms and digital innovations. In this
context, facilitating maritime trade has been crucial for seamless
and efficient maritime supply chains, including in ports and their
hinterland connections. Trade facilitation generates efficiency
gains and cost reductions in maritime trade procedures by
streamlining and harmonizing regulatory procedures by border
agencies involved in goods clearance at both ports and at
hinterland borders.

PORT
PERFORMANCE
AND MARITIME
TRADE AND
TRANSPORT
FACILITATION
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

A. PORT PERFORMANCE

1. Port calls and traffic recover from the pandemic crisis

Port calls over the last five years reflect the response of key shipping markets to the pandemic, the post-
COVID-19 recovery, and the war in Ukraine. All shipping markets saw a steep decline during the first
semester of 2020, and all have since recovered, albeit at different speeds.

Recovery for container ships and bulk carriers was hampered, while tankers
and passenger ship port calls surged beyond pre-COVID-19 levels
The number of port calls of container ships and dry bulk carriers, after observing a year-to-year drop in
the first half of 2022, increased by 3.3 and 4.1 per cent respectively in the second half of 2022. However
both segments were still below earlier peaks.
Liquid bulk carriers recorded steady growth of 3.9 per cent year-to-year to the second semester of 2022
and reached a historical high of almost 280,000 port calls per semester.
Port calls by passenger ships saw the most volatility. With the relaxing of the COVID-19 pandemic
restrictions, port calls jumped by 15.0 and 7.6 per cent during the first and second semesters of 2022,
respectively (figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Port calls per half year, world total, 2018–2022
280 000

260 000 Liquid bulk carriers

240 000

220 000 Container ships

200 000

180 000 Dry bulk carriers

160 000

140 000

120 000
S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 2022 2022

1 400 000
1 350 000 Passenger ships
1 300 000
1 250 000
1 200 000
1 150 000
1 100 000
1 050 000
1 000 000
950 000
900 000
Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by MarineTraffic.
Note: Ships of 1,000 GT and above. For the underlying data see http://stats.unctad.org/maritime.

85
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

Dry and liquid bulk carriers port calls follow different regional patterns
Port calls by liquid bulk carriers increased in all regions in 2022, with Africa and Latin America and the
Caribbean recording more than a 5 per cent increase, while the slowest growth of 2.3 per cent was in
Europe. Oceania took longer to start recovering from pandemic-induced disruptions and saw a 4 per cent
increase in 2022.
The situation was different for dry bulk carriers, with Africa being the only region to show an increase of
2.5 per cent in 2022. The highest drops of 2.8 and 1.9 per cent were observed in Asia and North America
respectively.

Container throughput grows faster than port calls

Containership port calls continued a downward trend for most regions in 2022, with the highest annual
drops in Europe (7.5 per cent), North America (5.4 per cent), and Latin America and the Caribbean
(4.4 per cent). Oceania recorded growth of 2.4 per cent but is yet to recover from a steep decline in 2021.
As container ship and call sizes go up, in spite of a relatively stagnant trend in port calls (figure 4.1), the
volume of containers loaded and unloaded saw a positive trend (figure 4.2). After a strong growth of
6.8 per cent in 2021 and a slight increase of 0.3 per cent in 2022, global container throughput is expected
to decline by 1.0 per cent of container traffic in 2023. For 2024, the forecast is 3.0 per cent growth.

Figure 4.2 Container throughput, million 20-foot equivalent units, 2016–2024

900
880
860
840
820
800
780
760
740
720
700
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Source: UNCTAD, based on Clarksons Research, Shipping Intelligence Network timeseries.

Note: Annual Clarksons Research estimates/projections. Data basis range of sources including World Bank, ports, and
industry associations.

2. Liner shipping connectivity back to a growth trend

Positive global trends but a persistent connectivity divide

In the second quarter of 2023, the most-connected economies, as measured by the Liner Shipping
Connectivity Index (LSCI) were in Asia, with China at the top, followed by the Republic of Korea, Singapore,
and Malaysia (UNCTAD, 2023d). All these countries recorded a year-to-year increase in connectivity of
between 3 and 5 per cent and reached record highs in their index values. The United States ranked fifth.
Three of the four European countries featuring among the top 10 best connected countries, namely Spain,
the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and Belgium, also showed an increase over this period, while the United
Kingdom recorded a slight drop.

Most regions recovered well in terms of post-pandemic shipping connectivity and congestion-related
disruptions. By the second quarter of 2023, regional averages for the LSCI in Asia, Latin America and the
Caribbean, and Oceania reached record highs. Meanwhile, the average LSCI for Africa also increased,
but remained below its pre-pandemic values. Contrarily, North America and Europe both recorded
downward trends in their average LSCI in 2022, only recording a recovery in the second quarter of 2023
(figure 4.3).

86
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

These different trends in different regions reflect the shifts in demand and supply during and after
the pandemic (see also chapter 1). Asia in particular has picked up container trade activity, including
intraregional traffic. In Europe and North America on the other hand, there was a boom in demand and
fleet deployment during the pandemic which was not sustained in the post-pandemic downturn. Africa
lies in between, with neither a post-COVID-19 boom, nor a post-COVID-19 downturn.

Figure 4.3 Liner shipping connectivity index, world and regional average, 2006 Q1–2023 Q2
50
45 Asia

40 Northern America
35
Europe
30
World
25
20 Africa
15
Latin America
10 and the Caribbean
5 Oceania
0
2006 Q1
2006 Q3
2007 Q1
2007 Q3
2008 Q1
2008 Q3
2009 Q1
2009 Q3
2010 Q1
2010 Q3
2011 Q1
2011 Q3
2012 Q1
2012 Q3
2013 Q1
2013 Q3
2014 Q1
2014 Q3
2015 Q1
2015 Q3
2016 Q1
2016 Q3
2017 Q1
2017 Q3
2018 Q1
2018 Q3
2019 Q1
2019 Q3
2020 Q1
2020 Q3
2021 Q1
2021 Q3
2022 Q1
2022 Q3
2023 Q1
Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by MDS Transmodal.
Note: Index is based on 2006 Q1 = 100 in China as the highest value for this period. For countries with no liner shipping
connections, their values are assumed to be zero. Countries with no liner shipping connections for the entire period
are excluded from the averages.

Small island developing states (SIDS), although showing some early signs of a rebound, are yet to return
to pre-pandemic levels in terms of the LSCI. This is linked to a reduced number of direct calls. Starting
from already low levels of connectivity, the LSCIs of African and Indian Ocean SIDS and Caribbean SIDS
declined during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the SIDS that had gained a position as a regional
trans-shipment centre, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic have resumed long-term growth trajectories,
while the Bahamas and Mauritius have not yet recovered from the decline experienced during the
pandemic (figure 4.4).

Bigger ships and fewer companies – two sides of the same coin
The LSCI is based on six components.1 Figure 4.5 depicts the trend in two of them, notably the size of
the largest ship (over all countries), and the number of companies providing services per country (average
per country).
As container ships have increased in size, the number of companies providing services has trended
downward. This trend seems to have been interrupted, or even reversed, over the past three years. Since
the end of 2019, ship sizes have only minimally increased, and since mid-2022, liner shipping companies
have been expanding into new markets with the average number of carriers providing services per country
increasing.
With regards to ship sizes, the current maximum container ship sizes are comparable to the largest bulk
carriers and tankers. Further increases in size would require significant investments in ports and channels,
and in hinterland logistics. Further ship size increases may lead to dis-economies of scale. While there are
container ships on the drawing board of around 28,000 20-foot equivalent units (TEU), it may well be that
for the foreseeable future, ship sizes will not increase further.
As for the recent increase in the number of companies providing services to the average country, this is
mostly linked to the expansion of networks within Asia. Soaring freight rates that prevailed in 2021 and
early 2022 had encouraged smaller companies to enter or expand into new markets including trade to
North America (see also chapter 2). However, although the number of carriers offering services from and
to North America has since declined, it has surged in Asia (figure 4.6), notably in China, India, Qatar and
Viet Nam.

87
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

Figure 4.4 Liner shipping connectivity index, selected countries and groupings averages,
2006 Q1–2023 Q2
12
Pacific SIDS
11

10 Caribbean
SIDS
9
Atlantic and
8 Indian Ocean
SIDS
7

5
2006 Q1

2006 Q4

2007 Q3

2008 Q2

2009 Q1

2009 Q4

2010 Q3

2011 Q2

2012 Q1

2012 Q4

2013 Q3

2014 Q2

2015 Q1

2015 Q4

2016 Q3

2017 Q2

2018 Q1

2018 Q4

2019 Q3

2020 Q2

2021 Q1

2021 Q4

2022 Q3

2023 Q2
45
Jamaica
40
Dominican
35 Republic
30
Bahamas
25
Mauritius
20

15

Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by MDS Transmodal.

Note: Index is based on 2006 Q1 = 100 in China as the highest value for this period. For countries with no liner shipping
connections, their values are assumed to be zero. Countries with no liner shipping connections for the entire period
are excluded from the averages. “AIO SIDS” stands for African and Indian Ocean small island developing States.

Figure 4.5 Number of operators and largest ships, average per country, 2006 Q1–2023 Q2
20 25 000

19 23 000

18 21 000

17 19 000

16 17 000

15 15 000

14 13 000

13 11 000

12 9 000
2006 Q1
2006 Q3
2007 Q1
2007 Q3
2008 Q1
2008 Q3
2009 Q1
2009 Q3
2010 Q1
2010 Q3
2011 Q1
2011 Q3
2012 Q1
2012 Q3
2013 Q1
2013 Q3
2014 Q1
2014 Q3
2015 Q1
2015 Q3
2016 Q1
2016 Q3
2017 Q1
2017 Q3
2018 Q1
2018 Q3
2019 Q1
2019 Q3
2020 Q1
2020 Q3
2021 Q1
2021 Q3
2022 Q1
2022 Q3
2023 Q1

Number of operators Largest ship

Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by MDS Transmodal.
Note: Average number of operators is calculated from the country data. For countries with no liner shipping connections,
their values are assumed to be zero. Countries with no liner shipping connections for the entire period are excluded
from the averages. Largest ship reflects the largest ship being serviced globally.

88
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

Figure 4.6 Average number of operators, regional average, 2006 Q1–2023 Q2

40

35
Asia
30
Northern America
25
Europe
20

15 Latin America
and the Caribbean
10
Africa
5
Oceania
0
2006 Q1
2006 Q4
2007 Q3
2008 Q2
2009 Q1
2009 Q4
2010 Q3
2011 Q2
2012 Q1
2012 Q4
2013 Q3
2014 Q2
2015 Q1
2015 Q4
2016 Q3
2017 Q2
2018 Q1
2018 Q4
2019 Q3
2020 Q2
2021 Q1
2021 Q4
2022 Q3
2023 Q2
Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by MDS Transmodal.
Note: Average number of operators is calculated from the country data. For countries with no liner shipping connections,
their values are assumed to be zero. Countries with no liner shipping connections for the entire period are excluded
from the averages.

Possible return to global liner shipping network growth

After decades of growth, the number of active container ports in the global liner shipping network had
been decreasing since early 2019, with significant drops recorded in the second quarter of 2020, including
in response to pandemic restrictions. The second quarter of 2022 also saw decreases, linked to the war
in Ukraine.
Most recently, however, the number of container ports included in the global network has increased again,
from 911 to 919 between the second quarters of 2022 and 2023. When looking at the number of active
container ports in different regions, Asia has recorded the strongest growth over the last years, while
Europe and North America have seen declines (figures 4.7 and 4.8).

Figure 4.7 Number of active container ports, world total, 2006 Q1–2023 Q2
980
960
940
920
900
880
860
840
820
2006 Q1
2006 Q3
2007 Q1
2007 Q3
2008 Q1
2008 Q3
2009 Q1
2009 Q3
2010 Q1
2010 Q3
2011 Q1
2011 Q3
2012 Q1
2012 Q3
2013 Q1
2013 Q3
2014 Q1
2014 Q3
2015 Q1
2015 Q3
2016 Q1
2016 Q3
2017 Q1
2017 Q3
2018 Q1
2018 Q3
2019 Q1
2019 Q3
2020 Q1
2020 Q3
2021 Q1
2021 Q3
2022 Q1
2022 Q3
2023 Q1

Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by MDS Transmodal.

3. Asian countries continue to lead in cargo handling performance

Asian container ports excel

The Container Port Performance Index (CPPI) is produced jointly by the World Bank and S&P Global
Market Intelligence. It is based on available data pertaining to the time a vessel spends in port, combined

89
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

Figure 4.8 Number of active container ports, regional totals, 2006 Q1–2023 Q2
350

300
Asia
250
Europe
200
Latin America
and the Caribbean
150
Africa
100
Oceania
50
Northern America
0
2006 Q1
2006 Q3
2007 Q1
2007 Q3
2008 Q1
2008 Q3
2009 Q1
2009 Q3
2010 Q1
2010 Q3
2011 Q1
2011 Q3
2012 Q1
2012 Q3
2013 Q1
2013 Q3
2014 Q1
2014 Q3
2015 Q1
2015 Q3
2016 Q1
2016 Q3
2017 Q1
2017 Q3
2018 Q1
2018 Q3
2019 Q1
2019 Q3
2020 Q1
2020 Q3
2021 Q1
2021 Q3
2022 Q1
2022 Q3
2023 Q1
Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by MDS Transmodal.

with container handling; it should be interpreted as an indicative measure of waterside container port
performance (World Bank, 2023a). Amongst the top 25 ports globally, 18 are in Asia, including 11 in
Eastern Asia and four in Western Asia (table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Top 25 ports under the Container Port Performance Index 2022
Port name Country 2022 rank Index points 2021 rank Change
Yangshan China 1 215.0 4 3
Salalah Oman 2 212.3 2 0
Khalifa Port United Arab Emirates 3 199.5 5 2
Cartagena Colombia 4 197.5 12 8
Tanger-Mediterranean Morocco 5 193.5 6 1
Tanjung Pelepas Malaysia 6 188.2 18 12
Ningbo China 7 184.5 7 0
Hamad Port Qatar 8 182.6 3 -5
Guangzhou China 9 181.2 9 0
Honk Kong, China Hong Kong, China 10 178.1 50 40
Port Said Egypt 11 177.3 15 4
Yokohama Japan 12 171.5 10 -2
Cai Mep Viet Nam 13 170.8 13 0
Shekou China 14 169.5 16 2
Mawan China 15 166.3 44 29
King Abdullah Port Saudi Arabia 16 165.1 1 -15
Posorja Ecuador 17 163.9 66 49
Algeciras Spain 18 162.0 11 -7
Singapore Singapore 19 157.5 31 12
Buenaventura Colombia 20 149.8 20 0
Yeosu Republic of Korea 21 149.6 33 12
Busan Republic of Korea 22 148.6 25 3
Chiwan China 23 147.6 17 -6
Djibouti Djibouti 24 145.9 19 -5
Tianjin China 25 145.8 27 2

Source: World Bank and S&P Global Port Performance Program.

Note: Ranked by the Administrative Approach scores.

90
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

Asian ports dominate the global ranking, with a median index value of +53.6. This is followed by Latin
America and the Caribbean (median index of +12.0), Africa (-27.3), Oceania (-33.1), and North America
(-42.6) (figure 4.9).
The CPPI reflects a port’s capacity to handle containers for export, import and trans-shipment. The top
performers on the index are the ports of Yangshan, China, and the port of Salalah, Oman. Both ports have
invested in trans-shipment operations, have developed automation and enhanced the interoperability
of their systems among border agencies and logistics operators. This investment illustrates the positive
relation between the business environment, port facilities, and port performance, ultimately leading to
greater efficiency and shorter port calls.

Figure 4.9 Container Port Performance Index values 2022, ports’ regional distributions
300
200
100
0
Port CPPI

-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Asia Latin America Europe Africa Oceania North America
and the
Caribbean

Source: World Bank and S&P Global Port Performance Program.

Note: Ranked by the Administrative Approach scores. The middle line represents the median, the top and bottom lines
of the boxes represent the first and third quartile, and the top and the bottom lines (the whiskers) represent the
minimum and the maximum values (excluding outliers).

Trans-shipment does not normally involve customs clearance, hence it leads to reduced dwell times at
port compared to export and import operations, which require regulatory interventions of border agencies
and often necessitate additional container movements inside the port. A port’s specialization in import,
export, or trans-shipment operations explains some of the differences in the CPPI rankings. The ports at
the bottom of the CPPI list mainly focus on imports.
Box 4.1 discusses developments in the Arab region, home to ports specializing in trans-shipment, notably
King Abdullah Port in Saudi Arabia, Port Salalah in Oman, Hamad Port in Qatar, and Khalifa Port in Abu
Dhabi, that record the highest indices.

Box 4.1 Container port efficiency in the Arab region

Arab countries are striving to position themselves as hubs for international trade and take advantage
of the strategic location of the region, which sits astride three continents. To reach this goal,
countries in the region have invested extensively in building ports and facilities, to gain a competitive
edge. Current port development plans show a strong desire to expand capacities. The plans also
aim to improve current infrastructure usage and modernize port operations through streamlined
procedures and automation, among other changes.
Ports in the region secured four of the top five positions on the Container Port Performance Index
(CPPI) of 2021.2 King Abdullah Port in Saudi Arabia, Port Salalah in Oman, Hamad Port in Qatar, and
Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi make up the top four regional ports.
Key port performance metrics reveal significant differences in global port efficiency in 2021, with
top performers like King Abdullah Port averaging 97 container moves per hour compared to just 26
container moves per hour at the major ports on the West Coast of North America.3

91
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

Box 4.1 Container port efficiency in the Arab region (cont.)

In 2022, only three ports—Salalah, Khalifa, and Tanger-Med—were able to maintain spots in the top
five positions as regards the CPPI, with Hamad Port dropping to 8th and King Abdullah Port to 17th.
The Tanger Med port strengthened its position as an important port in the Mediterranean in 2022 by
handling 7.5 million containers, an increase of 6 per cent from 2021, owing to its increased role as
hub for African trade. An estimated 35 per cent of African trade with the rest of the world is currently
transiting Tanger Med, which is connected to about 40 African ports.4
It is critical to consider that the closer ports come to reaching their full capacity, the slower the
container moves become. In 2022, container throughput in Salalah Port reached 4.5 million TEUs,
below its capacity of 5 million TEUs yearly. Port efficiency is really tested when large container
volumes are handled yearly, and ports still manage to secure top places. For example, Shanghai
Port is considered to be the world’s largest container port, exceeding 47.4 million TEUs,5 with one
of its most efficient terminals handling almost 22.9 million TEUs (Yangshan), ranked as the most
efficient port in 2022. The port managed to reduce ship waiting time by a sizeable three hours per
call in 2022 compared with 2021, and berth hours also improved over most call size ranges.6
At country level, only Morocco and the United Arab Emirates have secured positions in the top
countries for vessel turnaround time in 2021. Morocco registered a median vessel turnaround time
of .76 days while the United Arab Emirates registered a median of 1 day compared to .36 days for
Japan, the best performer.7 The two countries are also leading the region in terms of their scores in
the LSCI of 2022 with the United Arab Emirates ranked 1st regionally and Morocco 2nd, while the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ranks 3rd followed by Egypt and Oman.
Trade facilitation implementation is an important factor for reducing total time spent at ports, not only
for time spent loading and unloading vessels but also the time of clearing goods and turnaround
times for trucks inside the port, which could nullify the gain from reducing vessel turnaround times.
Reducing waiting times for vessels and trucks in ports not only saves time and money, thus reducing
trade costs, but also contributes to reducing CO2 emissions produced by vessels while waiting at
ports.

Source: UN-ESCWA.

Table 4.2 presents port performance measured in minutes per container move at the country level.8
Among the top 25 countries by port calls, the more containers are moved per port call (i.e., the bigger
the call size), the faster the loading and unloading. For call sizes of 4001 moves and above, it takes on
average less than one minute to load or unload per container. The underlying reason is the deployment of
more port cranes per ship, which allows for parallel operations. Larger port calls also tend to involve the
use of more automation across cranes and yards.
Hong Kong, China, was the fastest across five categories of call sizes. It was followed by Japan, the United
Arab Emirates and Viet Nam, which recorded the fastest container handling speeds in three categories
each. Malaysia and Viet Nam reached top speeds in two categories, and China, India, the Republic of
Korea, Türkiye and Taiwan Province of China recorded top speeds in one call size category each.

Table 4.2 Minutes per container move, 2022, by range of call size,
top 25 countries by port calls
501— 1001— 1501— 2001— 2501— 3001— 4001—
Country <500 >6000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 4000 6000
China 3.7 2.2 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4
United States 3.7 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.2
Singapore 3.5 1.9 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4
Republic of Korea 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
Malaysia 3.6 2.0 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4
Brazil 3.3 2.2 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.7 -
Spain 3.7 2.2 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7
Germany 4.4 2.5 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2
Belgium 3.7 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8
Honk Kong, China 2.8 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3

92
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

Table 4.2 Minutes per container move, 2022, by range of call size,
top 25 countries by port calls (cont.)
501— 1001— 1501— 2001— 2501— 3001— 4001—
Country <500 >6000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 4000 6000
United Arab Emirates 4.2 2.0 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5
Japan 2.2 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 -
Kingdom of the Netherlands 6.6 3.2 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.8
United Kingdom 4.0 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.8
Panama 3.5 2.3 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.7
Türkiye 3.8 2.6 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.2
Taiwan Province of China 3.3 2.0 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
Australia 3.8 2.9 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.4
India 2.8 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 -
Italy 4.1 3.1 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4
Viet Nam 2.6 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5
France 3.5 2.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.1
Thailand 2.6 2.5 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6
Indonesia 3.6 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 -
Philippines 5.8 5.2 3.9 3.8 2.4 1.6 1.6 - -
Average 3.7 2.4 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8
Per cent change from 2021 1.8 4.8 4.7 6.0 3.4 5.7 3.7 5.1 1.3

Source: S&P Global Port Performance Program.

Improvements in the performance of bulk shipping

Integrating Automatic Identification System (AIS) data on ship movements with information about cargo
transfers generates performance indicators for dry and liquid bulk cargo. Table 4.3 summarizes cargo and
vessel handling performance of bulk carriers for the top 30 countries in terms of ship arrivals.
Australia recorded the highest average loading speed, at 48 tons per minute, while Oman was fastest
when it comes to unloading dry bulk cargo, at 34 tons per minute. All four indicators covered in the table
saw improvements over the last year, i.e. average loading and unloading speeds increased, while average
waiting times decreased. This reflects a combination of long-term technological progress and a recovery
from pandemic disruptions.

Table 4.3 Cargo and vessel handling performance for dry bulk carriers, top 30 economies
by vessel arrivals, average values for the first four months of 2023 and changes
from 2022
Ton per minute Ton per minute Average waiting time Average waiting time
(loading) (discharge) to load (hours) to discharge (hours)
Country % change % change % change % change
2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022
to 2023 to 2023 to 2023 to 2023
China 22.5 17.3 28.3 14.6 61.5 -20.8 39.0 -19.1
Australia 48.4 2.6 10.4 6.3 105.7 -9.2 53.1 -8.7
United States 15.1 1.8 9.2 -3.8 91.1 -17.9 41.6 -30.0
Brazil 23.7 -2.9 9.9 1.2 217.9 16.8 98.8 -35.1
Russian Federation 12.8 -2.4 4.4 15.7 45.1 -7.5 28.6 -75.9
Canada 17.2 1.9 7.0 -27.6 107.3 1.7 35.5 -37.5
Argentina 16.3 -27.3 8.1 -6.8 36.0 -5.5 23.8 -0.1
Indonesia 17.7 2.9 11.3 1.0 76.2 -5.5 54.2 22.8
South Africa 16.6 3.0 9.2 8.6 98.9 -24.4 55.1 -31.8

93
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

Table 4.3 Cargo and vessel handling performance for dry bulk carriers, top 30 economies
by vessel arrivals, average values for the first four months of 2023 and changes
from 2022 (cont.)
Ton per minute Ton per minute Average waiting time Average waiting time
(loading)" (discharge) to load (hours) to discharge (hours)
Country % change % change % change % change
2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022
to 2023 to 2023 to 2023 to 2023
India 17.5 17.0 20.7 10.7 55.2 -19.5 35.3 -30.8
Japan 7.9 0.1 19.3 5.0 37.5 4.9 36.5 -8.8
Viet Nam 8.6 2.7 14.1 10.6 71.6 43.8 27.7 -27.4
United Arab Emirates 21.3 10.0 11.7 14.7 35.5 -1.3 27.4 23.1
Republic of Korea 9.8 -0.1 14.7 2.4 32.4 -9.9 72.9 1.2
New Zealand 9.6 1.4 7.5 1.4 68.8 -1.6 44.4 47.0
Chile 15.4 14.1 10.0 12.1 88.3 5.9 124.3 -2.3
Norway 24.6 -2.0 6.3 -2.3 56.0 -31.1 80.9 28.7
Ukraine 7.7 102.8 1.0 -84.0 10.8 -65.3 1.0 -97.2
Türkiye 7.7 9.0 9.0 0.7 46.1 -21.0 64.5 4.8
Colombia 22.6 0.8 8.7 29.5 40.9 -55.1 31.5 -27.6
Oman 15.5 0.7 33.6 37.4 45.9 -29.8 36.7 -56.4
Romania 6.4 -18.4 7.2 -19.2 95.1 30.1 41.0 -28.1
Peru 31.2 8.4 11.9 20.3 95.2 14.5 41.3 -36.0
Saudi Arabia 9.4 12.8 7.1 27.1 57.3 -8.9 58.3 -14.9
France 10.2 -3.2 8.1 -23.3 46.8 10.4 58.9 -6.4
Malaysia 9.9 -0.5 11.2 -3.1 48.6 -28.8 53.0 -48.8
Mozambique 13.8 -19.5 7.0 13.2 171.8 22.4 154.4 -20.5
Spain 15.3 11.0 10.1 -0.1 61.2 12.2 42.3 -23.8
Taiwan Province of China 9.9 -6.1 15.0 -6.1 27.3 -11.3 65.8 20.2
Germany 9.0 23.3 19.0 29.0 46.5 -32.3 45.9 -19.5
Average 15.8 5.4 11.7 2.8 69.3 -8.1 52.5 -18.0

Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by VesselsValue (http://vesselsvalue.com/).

Note: Ranked by number of dry bulk carrier arrivals for loading. Data for ton per minute calculated as total dead weight tons
per total time in minutes for loading/discharging. The data for 2023 is the average from January 2023–April 2023.

Table 4.4 presents tanker cargo and vessel handling performance for the top 30 countries in terms of ship
arrivals. Here again, cargo handling performance improved for both loading and discharge. Similarly to
dry bulk carriers, tankers observed improved average waiting times for loading, but the average increased
for discharge, mainly due to significant increases in Qatar (six-fold) and Angola (two-fold), resulting from
tanker port congestion in these two countries in 2022. The fastest loading times are recorded for Angola,
at 98 tons per minute, while Kuwait had the fastest unloading times, at 169 tons per minute.

Table 4.4 Cargo and vessel handling performance for tankers, top 30 economies by
vessel arrivals, average values for the first four months of 2023 and changes
from 2022
Ton per minute Ton per minute Average waiting time Average waiting time
(loading) (discharge) to load (hours) to discharge (hours)
Country % change % change % change % change
2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022
to 2023 to 2023 to 2023 to 2023
United States 26.4 6.6 32.9 0.9 49.1 0.8 56.2 -1.0
Russian Federation 38.1 1.9 28.2 20.7 31.5 -19.1 36.4 25.0
Saudi Arabia 77.3 0.4 26.5 4.1 37.7 1.3 49.7 16.6

94
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

Table 4.4 Cargo and vessel handling performance for tankers, top 30 economies by
vessel arrivals, average values for the first four months of 2023 and changes
from 2022 (cont.)
Ton per minute Ton per minute Average waiting time Average waiting time
(loading) (discharge) to load (hours) to discharge (hours)
Country % change % change % change % change
2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022 2023 from 2022
to 2023 to 2023 to 2023 to 2023

Brazil 54.5 -4.5 31.1 3.1 38.9 -12.1 72.9 -1.3

China 28.0 13.1 45.0 3.0 37.9 -10.3 56.3 -18.5
United Arab Emirates 67.2 1.0 25.1 -8.9 49.3 -20.8 51.8 -49.1
India 32.5 26.1 50.1 -0.9 41.5 -19.8 45.2 -20.5
Republic of Korea 27.4 -1.1 79.2 9.9 47.0 -14.8 37.8 -10.8
Malaysia 27.8 1.2 37.3 1.9 48.0 -12.7 48.6 -17.9
Singapore 30.2 6.7 38.9 -4.1 44.2 0.3 30.1 -34.3
Indonesia 17.8 9.8 25.3 -3.2 44.8 -7.6 41.7 -2.2
Mexico 25.2 -1.5 21.2 -2.5 84.5 14.5 89.3 -22.2
Italy 18.0 4.4 39.9 4.4 53.6 8.8 55.0 10.1
Kingdom of the Netherlands 18.1 22.4 35.9 18.7 61.7 2.5 49.8 0.1
Iraq 54.8 17.7 7.7 -16.6 34.8 -9.9 79.0 -24.6
Kuwait 87.3 7.4 169.3 282.2 32.8 -25.9 62.5 16.7
Türkiye 50.2 -1.3 27.8 -5.9 30.1 -11.8 56.5 45.0
Nigeria 42.8 9.2 8.0 -9.9 26.7 -16.5 79.2 -5.7
Norway 68.0 5.4 21.4 10.1 27.4 -28.3 32.0 -31.6
Canada 34.8 -7.8 49.1 7.7 35.8 3.4 57.0 -8.8
Egypt 69.5 17.7 57.4 27.0 27.0 -14.9 92.2 43.7
United Kingdom 39.9 11.7 33.4 26.6 44.8 -7.2 55.3 -2.3
Spain 13.4 -13.7 34.5 0.0 38.8 5.2 41.0 -10.4
Qatar 91.3 12.5 62.5 -4.3 23.4 4.3 58.2 492.4
Angola 97.7 -9.9 17.8 8.0 21.8 -17.2 40.7 106.6
Argentina 26.0 7.6 18.3 12.6 39.8 0.9 38.0 44.8
Oman 39.0 -1.5 20.4 142.2 44.1 -34.6 65.5 6.1
Libya 59.5 2.1 9.5 11.8 22.6 -6.3 111.6 20.6
Algeria 44.1 6.4 10.3 13.4 27.6 -21.9 19.6 -35.3
Belgium 11.0 7.9 15.8 8.2 53.5 19.0 32.3 -31.7
Average 43.9 5.3 36.0 18.7 40.0 -8.4 54.7 16.7

Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by VesselsValue (http://vesselsvalue.com/).

Note: Ranked by number of dry bulk carrier arrivals for loading. Data for ton per minute calculated as a total
dead weight tons per total time in minutes for loading/discharging. The data for 2023 is the average from January
2023–April 2023.

4. Time in port and congestion recovering from pandemic disruptions

Improved time in port since mid-2022

Over the years, the time that ships spend in ports has been slowly but steadily improving. However, during
the COVID-19 pandemic, progress was lost, and all vessel types saw an increase in port times. As the
pandemic and related disruptions fade, ship turnaround times improved in the second semester of 2022,
albeit still remaining above pre-pandemic levels (figure 4.10).
A typical dry bulk carrier spends about three times longer in port than a container ship. Cargo tends to be
less valuable, and speed is less important. Also, normally the full load tends to be loaded or unloaded, while
a container ship calls at a series of ports and in each port only a portion of the cargo is loaded or unloaded.

95
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

Figure 4.10 Time in port, world median, in days, 2018 S1–2022 S2

2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2 Dry bulk carriers
1.9
1.8
1.7 Dry breakbulk carriers
1.6
1.5
1.4 Liquid bulk carriers
1.3
1.2
1.1
1 Container ships
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 2022 2022

Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by MarineTraffic.

Note: Ships of 1 000 GT and above.

Congestion reduced for containerships

Vessel waiting times before tying up at a berth are an indicator of possible port congestion. Container
ships tend to spend more time in port in developing countries than in developed countries (figure 4.11).
These averages can be explained by a combination of faster clearance times, better infrastructure, and
higher labour productivity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, waiting times surged in developed
countries more than in developing countries, even exceeding those of the latter in early 2022. As demand
for manufactured imports went up, especially during periods of lock-downs combined with economic
stimulus packages, ports could not cope with the surge in volumes and experienced serious congestion,
especially in North America and some European ports.
Figure 4.12 shows the fleet capacity held up at an anchorage or in port. This indictor can serve as a proxy
to infer port productivity and congestion trends. From July 2022 to April 2023, the proportion of the global
containership fleet capacity in port decreased from 37.1 per cent to 32 per cent. For bulk carriers, after a
significant drop from 35.4 to 30.9 per cent between April and August 2022, the share of capacity in port
slightly increased to 32.7 per cent in April 2023.
The share of the chemical tanker fleet capacity in ports remains at the elevated levels of about 46 per cent
since late 2021, compared to an average of about 42 per cent before the outbreak of COVID-19. Chemical
tanker congestion has gradually risen since the end of 2020, with increased congestion in East Asia and
Europe as key drivers. Meanwhile, disruption from the war in Ukraine has driven up congestion in the
Mediterranean and Black Sea. In Northwestern Europe, terminal capacity has struggled to accommodate
the recent increase in shipments as land-borne Russian volumes have begun to be phased out.
Interestingly, the proportion of container ship and bulk carrier capacity in ports are comparable, even
though container ships tend to benefit from faster cargo handling work. The reason for this is that container
ships are faster at sea, normally with higher voyage speeds than bulk carriers, but they also call at a larger
number of ports while providing a liner shipping service. Both vessel types saw a surge in the share of fleet
capacity in port during the pandemic, and both saw an improvement since early 2022.

96
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

Figure 4.11 Average waiting times of container ships at port in hours, monthly,
January 2016–July 2023
14
12
10
8
Developing
6 countries
4
Developed
2
countries
0
Jan 2016

Jan 2017

Jan 2018

Jan 2019

Jan 2020

Jan 2021

Jan 2022

Jan 2023
Jul 2016

Jul 2017

Jul 2018

Jul 2019

Jul 2020

Jul 2021

Jul 2022

Jul 2023
Source: UNCTAD, based on data provided by Clarksons Research.
Notes: Waiting time estimated based on the time between vessel first entering an anchorage associated with a port group
(or port where vessel has not been seen in an anchorage shape), and first entering a berth within a port.

Figure 4.12 Per cent of fleet capacity at anchorage or in the port, by vessel type,
January 2016–April 2023
50

45
Chemical tankers

40
Container ships
35 Bulk carriers

30

25
2016-01
2016-04
2016-07
2016-10
2017-01
2017-04
2017-07
2017-10
2018-01
2018-04
2018-07
2018-10
2019-01
2019-04
2019-07
2019-10
2020-01
2020-04
2020-07
2020-10
2021-01
2021-04
2021-07
2021-10
2022-01
2022-04
2022-07
2022-10
2023-01
2023-04

Source: UNCTAD, based on Clarksons Research, Shipping Intelligence Network timeseries.

Note: Based on seven-days moving average. Data based on the proportion of vessels (in terms of dead weight tons) in
the fleet in a defined port or anchorage location. Container ships of 8 000 TEU and above. Bulk carriers consist of
Capesize and Panamax. Chemical tankers of 100 GT and above.

97
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

B. FACILITATING MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT

1. Maritime trade facilitation and port performances

Progress made
While the year 2022 was challenging for maritime transport with congestion and long dwell times for
goods moving through ports, the situation improved in early 2023 with a reduction in both congestion and
release times.
The 2023 World Bank Logistics Performance Index (LPI), covering 2022 data, suggests robustness
of the maritime supply chains with adaptability to the recent shocks (World Bank, 2023a). Yet major
challenges remain in many ports, with significant dwell times offshore and while vessels are docked.
Port time is still above pre-pandemic levels with a median time in port of 1.04 days for all ships in 2022.
This contributes to the total time it takes for goods to be cleared before their release in the importing
seaport.9 These developments impact the efficiency of port performance and, therefore, global supply
chains.
Among the ports which reduced the most the average arrival times10 during 2021–2022, Dar es Salaam
port comes first on the Container Port Performance Index (CPPI) 2022 (World Bank, 2023a). The
improved performances of some African and Asian ports have benefited from expanding port capacity
and upgrading technology, including investments in trade facilitation reforms. As an example, the
government of United Republic of Tanzania has invested heavily in the Dar es Salaam port facilities. It
improved clearance procedures with the goal of making the port the entry point of the Central Corridor
and the route to Southern Africa. As a result, port performance has improved not only regarding container
capacity but also the overall position of Dar es Salaam in maritime transport networks, with an increase
on the LSCI of 50 per cent since 2006.

Trade facilitation most relevant for import cargo

Cargo traffic in seaports can be categorized into export, import, transit and trans-shipment operations.
Border agencies are required to intervene to ensure compliance with the regulations and clearance of
consignments, especially for imports, exports and transit, less so for trans-shipment.
According to the World Bank Logistics Performance Index 2023, export and import dwell time of container
ports evolve similarly. However, more customs and compliance controls are linked to imports than exports.
This means that dwell time is higher for imports due to border agencies needing to intervene to clear
consignments. Import lead time was the highest driver of variability in international trade in 2022 (World
Bank, 2023b).

2. Factors that impact port performance

Trade facilitation measures and port performance

Delays occur when vessels, containers, or goods are not moving. The lack of movement points to
inefficiencies in ports, including complexity regarding the administrative or institutional requirements for
the clearance of goods. It is important to invest in digitalization and technology, which can help increase
the predictability and reliability of global supply chains, to achieve greater clearance efficiency and reduce
delays - a defining factor of port performance.
Looking into the connections between the CPPI and regulatory processes, figure 4.13 correlates the
distributions of the CPPI by country according to their implementation status for selected measures
under the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation. There are positive linkages for certain measures such
as Electronic Payment (article 7.2), Risk management (article 7.4), Authorized Operators (article 7.7), and
Border Agency Cooperation (article 8). Interestingly, these articles are also among the measures with the
lowest implementation rate by least developed countries (LDCs) and developing countries.

Digital solutions and interoperability

Digitalization is key to port efficiency. Investing in new technology such as interactive data exchange,
artificial intelligence and other new processes allows for increased efficiency and agility in global supply
chains. This also relates to governments which invest in these systems to improve the efficiency of their
regulatory procedures, thereby improving their trading environment and trade efficiency.

98
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

Figure 4.13 Country Container Port Performance Index values 2022

by implementation status of selected measures under the WTO Trade Facilitation
Agreement
Electronic payment (Article 7.2) Risk management (Article 7.4)
200
150
100
Country CPPI

50
0
-50
-100
-150
Pending Implemented Pending Implemented
-200
WTO TFA measure implementation status
Authorized operators (Article 7.7) Border agency cooperation (Article 8)
200
150
100
Country CPPI

50
0
-50
-100
-150
Pending Implemented Pending Implemented
-200

Source: UNCTAD, based on data from the Container Port Performance Index 2022 and the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement
Facility.
Note: Country grouping implementation status based on the WTO TFA articles. Distributions showing port efficiency
according to the 2022 Container Port Performance Index of the World Bank and S&P Global using the Administrative
Approach scores. The middle line represents the median, the top and bottom lines of the boxes represent the first
and third quartile, and the top and the bottom lines (the whiskers) represent the minimum and the maximum values
(excluding outliers).

The decision of IMO for compulsory Maritime electronic Single Windows (MSWs) from 1st January
2024 will further promote digital port infrastructure. This will increase the need for interoperability and
coordination of port agencies while requiring the exchange of information.
Port efficiency is also based on predictability and reliability of data exchange linked to pre-arrival processing
which allows for “just-in-time” arrivals at the port. By way of example, successful experiences in various
ports of the United Arab Emirates in data exchange to better manage the flows of vessels arriving at ports
show the benefits of investments in digital port systems and interconnectivity (AD Ports Group, 2023).
Another example is Finland, where a digital platform with smartphone applications enables ships to view
the current condition at ports and just-in-time arrival. Port community systems are another example of
digital solutions that facilitate maritime trade and serve as platforms to coordinate stakeholders in a port
community and enable seamless information exchange. By streamlining communication and automating
data, they enhance efficiency, transparency, and security. The integration of port community systems with
the port digitalization agenda can help in this regard (World Bank, 2023c).

The role of border agencies

Technology not only increases port efficiency and maritime supply chains but can enhance public-private
collaboration and trust between partners. Thus, digitalization requires both political will and dedicated
engagement from border agencies, in collaboration with the private sector, to build an organized ecosystem
in which data flows are clearly identified and secured.

99
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

Customs and other border agencies are often identified among the underperforming stakeholders in
the World Bank Logistics Performance Index, with at times extremely low scores, in particular in least
developed countries. While trade facilitation is not the only factor impacting port performance, efficient
and agile border agencies, including for instance their pre-arrival procedures for cargo and vessels, will
positively impact the handling and flow of the consignment through the port and up to the goods’ final
destination. In this respect, the more digitalized and interconnected border agencies are, and the better
public-private partnerships are integrated, the higher the port performance.

3. Trade facilitation and hinterland connectivity

Congestion frequently occurs both inside and outside seaports and hampers the flow of goods. Hinterland
activities can be as important as port activities, especially for the international trade of Landlocked
Developing Countries (LLDCs). The cost of hinterland transport is about 40 per cent of total container
transport cost.
Elements such as corridors and dry ports, as well as efficient integrated border management and transit
procedures are all important to create an efficient intermodal transport environment. In this regard, transit
regimes can assist in lowering the time and costs of LLDC overseas trade. They also contribute to reducing
port congestion if they help speed up the release of transit goods.
Transit trade benefits from mutually recognized regional or international transit regimes. Ideally, they
are combined with transit guarantee, and digital solutions such as the SIGMAT solutions developed by
UNCTAD, which establish interconnectivity between national customs management systems in West
Africa. In addition, transit regimes should be combined with other harmonized trade and transport regimes
accepted by customs administrations and other border agencies, to ensure that transit trade can be
efficiently facilitated from the seaports to landlocked countries and other inland destinations.
A good example of an efficient regional transit solution is the East African Community (EAC), a Customs
union, with two main corridors linking LLDC members to the Mombasa and Dar es Salaam ports. Policy
reforms adopted by the EAC Partner States to implement a customs transit system, the Regional Electronic
Cargo Tracking System (RECTS), One-Stop Border Posts (OSBPs) and setting up the institutional
ecosystem on the Northern and Central Corridors have helped increase intraregional trade. They have
also contributed to connecting the landlocked countries of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda to regional and
global supply chains. As a result, the time to move cargo from Mombasa to Kampala has been reduced
from 18 days to three days, and from Mombasa to Kigali from 21 days to six days. The cost of transport
from Mombasa to Nairobi has also been reduced by 56 per cent, by 26 per cent to Kampala (Uganda)
and by 28 per cent to Kigali (Rwanda).
International standards are key to facilitating international intermodal connectivity. There is an important
role for international bodies to develop such standards, and for countries to apply them. By way of
example, standardizing the packing of intermodal shipping containers can be a practical way of facilitating
intermodal transport (box 4.2).

Box 4.2 Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units

Poor practices related to packing cargo in containers, in particular regarding load distribution
and securing cargo, but also regarding classification and declaration of cargo, are estimated to
cost the worldwide transport and logistics sector more than $6 billion every year. They can be
the cause of incidents, in which people, whether supply chain workers or the general public, can
be injured or lose their lives. Poor practices must therefore be eliminated, and the right code of
practice should be applied for handling and packing containers and other cargo transport units
for transport by sea and land.
Such is the Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTU Code), a joint publication
of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which provides comprehensive
information and references all aspects of loading and securing cargo in containers and other cargo
transport units and takes into account the requirements of all sea and land transport modes.
The CTU Code applies to transport operations throughout the entire intermodal transport chain
and provides guidance to those responsible for cargo packing and securing as well as to all
parties involved in the supply chain.

100
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

Box 4.2 Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (cont.)
The CTU Code is currently being reviewed and updated, taking into account the latest
developments in the freight transport sector. Updates are proposed to practices concerning
issues such as transporting solid bulk cargos in cargo transport units, transporting liquids in
flexitanks, blocking material and arrangements, package stability and bedding arrangements, as
well as preventing pest contamination.
Further information about the UNECE Working Party on Intermodal Transport and Logistics is
available under https://unece.org/transport/intermodal-transport.

Source: UN-ECE.

Another development towards improved hinterland connectivity lies in ‘port regionalization’ (Notteboom
and Rodrigue, 2005). The concept describes the emergence of hub-and-spoke networks to help reduce
the pressure on port terminals and facilitate border clearance. Spokes are the physical infrastructure,
such as inland container terminals or dry ports that serve as extended gates of the seaport (hub) where
consolidation and distribution of goods take place. The hub and spoke requires interdependency of
public and private stakeholders, with clearly identified processes and regulatory frameworks, achieved by
establishing Special Trade Regimes (STRs) and Export Processing Zones (EPZs).

4. Trade facilitation is essential to respond to new requirements emerging

from environmental and climate policies
New legal requirements in relation to environmental protection will lead to additional needs for controls
when importing goods. This could create new obstacles to trade if it leads to additional red tape. For
instance, the Carbon Border Adjustments Mechanism (CBAM) is an instrument of the European Green
Deal within the overall strategy to mobilize funding for all sectors related to climate change. As of 1
October 2023, the mechanism will be an import tariff on carbon-intensive goods from abroad paid by the
importer when products enter the European Union.
The role of border agencies will be to report the carbon emissions verified by an accreditation authority in
charge of issuing the CBAM certificate. The certificate is equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide emissions.
One administrative burden of the CBAM will be at certification level prior to the border crossing. As a
result, these new carbon mechanisms will potentially change the trade facilitation process in terms of
certification and compliance before customs clearance.
Finally, trade facilitation itself can help to lower emissions by reducing congestion and the use of paper.
Consequently, climate-smart trade facilitation has emerged as a new relevant concept, reflecting the need
for sustainable and green supply chains, in view of reducing carbon emissions.

101
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

C. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE TRAINFORTRADE PORT

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

1. Port performance trends and insights from the TrainForTrade programme

The UNCTAD TrainForTrade Port Management Programme helps ports deliver more efficient and competitive
services, impacting port performance and efficiency. Since 2012, TrainForTrade’s network members have
completed an annual survey which collects data in a secure and confidential manner to produce a Port
Performance Scorecard (PPS), enabling port managers to benchmark their performances and provide
evidence for policy analysis at global, regional, and state levels. A total of 37 port entities contributed
data from which the PPS derived 26 indicators under the following categories: finance, human resources,
gender, vessel operations, cargo operations, and environment. The outcomes of these activities provide
interesting insights that help inform this section of the Review (UNCTAD, 2023a, 2023b, and 2023c).
The ports in the survey are typically small and medium in size, with the median sized port handling just
above 10 million tons per annum and generating median annual revenue of under $60 million. These are
more than 80 per cent state owned, with most operating as corporate entities.
The infrastructure and port services mix varies across the group in terms of vessel and cargo types. The
median port will have 20 per cent of arrivals by container vessels, 27 per cent as general cargo and 15
per cent in bulk carriers and tankers. Other vessel calls, such as passenger vessels and cruise vessels,
make up the balance (table 4.5).

Table 4.5 Port Performance Scorecard, 2016–2022

Number
of port
Indicator 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
entities
reporting
EBITDA/revenue (operating margin) 31 34.4% 36.7% 44.6% 40.9% 33.7% 40.4% 43.8%
Labour/revenue 31 14.9% 19.0% 16.8% 18.0% 20.5% 16.4% 16.8%
Vessel dues/revenue 30 15.4% 16.4% 19.2% 14.9% 14.8% 15.8% 12.7%
Finance
Cargo dues/revenue 30 36.3% 34.1% 26.7% 31.6% 35.7% 32.6% 27.6%
Concession fees/revenue 28 2.0% 6.6% 14.3% 13.3% 10.2% 21.2% 16.5%
Rents/Revenue 31 3.1% 2.7% 3.3% 3.3% 3.6% 2.7% 0.6%
Tons/employee 28 14 091 t 15 500 t 36 288 t 34 647 t 27 265 t 35 018 t 32 331 t
Revenue/employee 27 129 813 112 527 143 113 169 912 162 933 268 501 226 522
USD USD USD USD USD USD USD
Human EBITDA/employee 27 46 411 41 851 59 844 74 174 52 835 61 898 88 035
resources USD USD USD USD USD USD USD
Labour cost/employee 27 23 231 21 753 21 355 25 074 25 938 23 370 19 573
USD USD USD USD USD USD USD
Training cost/wages 28 0.9% 1.0% 1.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
Female Participation Rate - All categories 22 13.7% 14.5% 15.7% 16.2% 16.9% 15.4% 16.1%
Female Participation Rate - Management 31 34.0% 35.0% 40.7% 38.8% 42.9% 40.1% 40.7%
Female Participation Rate - Operations 28 23.8% 21.1% 6.4% 7.4% 10.7% 6.4% 10.5%
Gender
Female Participation Rate - Cargo 18 0.0% 3.1% 5.9% 4.4% 2.3% 4.5% 0.5%
Handling
Female Participation Rate - Other 19 28.6% 24.8% 26.9% 31.2% 29.3% 26.1% 23.7%
employees
Average waiting time 30 4h 8h 14 h 5h 8h 7h 10 h
Average gross tonnage per vessel 34 16 163 14 952 16 759 16 298 16 525 16 322 22 543
GT GT GT GT GT GT GT
Average of Oil Tankers arrivals 32 4.0% 4.7% 7.7% 9.6% 6.4% 6.6% 6.3%
Vessel Average of Bulk Carrier arrivals 32 5.4% 6.1% 5.0% 6.6% 7.6% 8.3% 5.8%
operations
Average of Container Ship arrivals 32 35.6% 40.9% 26.7% 26.8% 28.2% 24.2% 20.8%
Average of Cruise Ship 32 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Average of General Cargo Ship 32 15.4% 15.8% 21.3% 22.0% 20.6% 24.6% 26.8%
Average of Other Ship 32 13.0% 11.8% 12.9% 8.8% 14.6% 6.2% 13.9%

102
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

Table 4.5 Port Performance Scorecard, 2016–2022 (cont.)

Number
of port
Indicator 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
entities
reporting
Average tonnage per arrival (all) 32 5 360 t 7 945 t 7 008 t 7 190 t 5 469 t 5 253 t 5 623 t
Tons per working hour, dry or solid bulk 29 244 t 219 t 261 t 191 t 229 t 147 t 95 t
Tons per hour, liquid bulk 26 737 t 222 t 186 t 201 t 166 t 140 t 120 t
Containers Lift Per Ship Hour at Berth 27 22 26 18 20 22 21 18
Average container dwell time in days 23 5 4 5 5 5 5 3
Cargo
operations Tons per hectare (all) 29 141 109 94 226 t 93 205 t 86 171 t 94 271 t 95 563 t
091 t 608 t
Tons per berth meter (all) 33 3 071 t 3 125 t 3 325 t 2 990 t 2 833 t 2 905 t 2 796 t
Total Passengers on Ferries 18 1211 1396 1172 1145 302 213 147 170 1055
915 864 711 084 517
Total Passengers on Cruise 20 32 700 23 880 32 054 25 585 1 275 0 5 470
Investment in Environmental Projects/ 20 0.0% 1.3% 1.2% 0.9% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
Environment Total CAPEX
Environmental expenditures/Revenue 24 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on data from port entities reporting to the TrainForTrade Port Performance Scorecard.
Note: EBITDA, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization; CAPEX, capital expenditure. Data
summarized without applying any methodologies for handling missing data.

2. Trends in traffic, income, employment, and digitalization

Post-pandemic recovery hampered

Data from members of the TrainForTrade port management programme for 2019 to 2022 reflects the impact
of disruption on port volumes and revenue growth rates (figure 4.14). Median growth rates of both volume
and revenue fell in 2019 and 2020 for ports in the network. There was a strong recovery in 2021 with a
subsequent fall in 2022. This might be explained by trade flow disruptions linked to the war in Ukraine, port
congestion and other factors, although the impacts vary by cargo or commodity across the group of ports.
Financial performance levels (measured by earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization
(EBITDA) vs total revenue) showed a fall in 2020 with profit levels for the median port falling to levels
that would, if sustained, impact the longer-term capacity of ports to invest in port infrastructure. The
reports for 2021 and 2022 showed a return to levels above 40 per cent, consistent with levels required of
infrastructure utilities.

Passenger traffic rebounds after the pandemic

The cruise operations across the network vary greatly in type and scale. In March 2020, the entire world
cruise fleet came to a near total stop. This is visible in figure 4.15, showing a significant drop in cruise
passenger numbers in 2020 and 2021. The situation slightly improved in 2022 but is still far from pre-2020
levels. Local passenger traffic turned out to be more resilient, reaching pre-pandemic values in 2022.

Growth in concession and property income share

Revenue across ports varies, and partly depends on the extent to which the port has privatized service
provisions within the port, and the extent of a landbank under management. Ports in the UNCTAD
TrainForTrade network recorded a growth in concession and property income. Larger container ports in
particular, may see a shift over time, reflecting revenues from privatised container terminals.

Investing in decarbonization
The environmental performance debate has moved on from management systems and monitoring data
to the decarbonization of maritime transport in ports and at sea (see also chapter 3). Strategically, ports in
the UNCTAD TrainForTrade network are increasingly looking at performance in terms of carbon reduction,
provision of alternative fuels to vessels, and onshore power supply by green energy. Other port feedback
includes integrating technology into all port activities, and digitalization, which will in turn transform
performance appraisal in terms of metrics and data access.

103
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

Figure 4.14 Selected port performance indicators, median value across all port members of
the TrainForTrade Port Management programme, 2016–2022

Volume and revenue EBITDA vs revenue

15 46
Volume Revenue
44
10
42
5 40

0 38
36
-5
34

-10 32
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Payroll vs revenue Training cost vs payroll

1.2
21
1.1
20 1.0
19 0.9
0.8
18 0.7
17 0.6
0.5
16
0.4
15 0.3
14 0.2

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on data from port entities reporting to the TrainForTrade Port Performance Scorecard.
Note: Volume and revenue values calculated as median year-to-year percentage change across all ports to minimize the
bias due to data availability from reporting port entities. EBITDA, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization. Data summarized without applying any methodologies for handling missing data.

Figure 4.15 Cruise and ferry passenger, median value across all ports, 2016–2022
1 600 000 35 000

1 400 000 30 000

1 200 000
25 000
1 000 000 Ferries
20 000
800 000
15 000
600 000 Cruise
vessels
10 000
400 000

200 000 5 000

0 0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on data from port entities reporting to the TrainForTrade Port Performance Scorecard.
Note: Passengers on cruise vessels comprise of in, out and remain on board passengers. Passengers on ferries comprise
of in and out passengers. Data summarized without applying any methodology for handling missing data.

104
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

Figure 4.16 Port authority revenue profile, median share of concession and property dues,
members of the TrainForTrade Port Management Programme, 2016–2022
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on data from port entities reporting to the TrainForTrade Port Performance Scorecard.
Note: Data summarized without applying any methodology for handling missing data.

Limited spending on training

Payroll as a proportion of total revenue showed a decline, which may indicate disruption to wage increases
and caution in recruitment plans. Also of note is the low level of median spending reported as committed
to training as a proportion of payroll cost over the period 2016 to 2022 – ranging from 0.3 per cent to
1.1 per cent. The lowest value was recorded in 2022 reflecting a falling rate since 2018. While there is
evidence of training programmes going online – a cost reduction – the overall level is arguably too low in
the context of the transformative trends in the industry.

Digital transformation helps improve port performance

The following case presents interesting perspectives from a long-standing partner of the TrainForTrade Port
Management Programme network: the Port Authority of Valencia (box 4.3). The case illustrates how the digital
transformation journey related to Valencia’s Port Community System helps with monitoring, benchmarking
and planning activities through the use of standardized scorecards. It underlines that measuring performance
is among the requirements to ensure good port management. In this case, the project and participation in
the UNCTAD Port Performance Scorecard programme were essential in achieving the port’s strategic vision.

Box 4.3 Digital transformation and scorecards – the Port Authority of Valencia
The success of the digital transformation in logistics chains greatly depends on the ability of
various actors, including ports, to collect, aggregate, store, and distribute information. The Port
Authority of Valencia’s port data management project coordinates the entire data management
process in the ports it operates. Its objective is to make the data available to internal processes and
third parties. The port data management project lays the foundation for a new value proposition
based on data. It incorporates governance mechanisms to ensure a smooth transition towards
advanced analytics models and solutions such as Artificial Intelligence and Digital Twins in ports.
Externally, the Port Authority of Valencia manages the port community system (PCS) which
provides information connectivity services to around 1,100 companies in the port community.
The PCS, key to the competitiveness of the services offered, is a powerful digital platform that
transmits information and plays a central role in the digitization process. The PCS is currently
evolving to allow its users to share information to different members along the logistics chain.
Internally, implementing a new port management and information system and port collaborative
decision making tools will provide comprehensive information about operations and management.
It will be further enriched with information from the network of sensors deployed throughout the
port (environmental control systems, cameras, etc.) contextualizing port operations.
Measuring performance and following up on strategic plans are fundamental to good port
management. The port data management project automates the management of information
needed for strategic monitoring.

105
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

Box 4.3 Digital transformation and scorecards – the Port Authority of Valencia (cont.)
The Port Authority of Valencia has been participating in UNCTAD’s Port Performance Scorecard
since its inception, as its objectives are aligned with the port authority’s vision of the need to
monitor its policies and strategies. The Port Performance Scorecard enables ports to bench
themselves against other ports and compare performance with international standards. UNCTAD
ensures independence and quality for the Port Performance Scorecard programme, making it a
key external reference in port monitoring.
The port data management project and participation in the Port Performance Scorecard
programme are essential for achieving the strategic vision for 2030, incorporating digitalization
and excellence in management.

Source: Port Authority of Valencia, June 2023. See also https://www.valenciaport.com.

The need to further promote women in ports

The participation of women in the port industry remains low and little changed year on year. There remains
a marked difference between those engaged in management or administrative grades and those more
broadly defined as engaged in operations. These median values in figure 4.17 show that participation
rates have at best increased by small single percentage points.
There are cases of individual ports and terminals where participation rates are considerably higher, and
the range of data points is very large. From a policy perspective, there is a need for actions which support
women in the port industry.

Figure 4.17 Women’s participation in port workforces, median across all ports, 2016–2022
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Cargo handling Management, Administration, Corporate

Operations, Technical, Marine and Engineering Other employees Total

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on data from port entities reporting to the TrainForTrade Port Performance Scorecard.
Note: Data summarized without applying any methodology for handling missing data.

106
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

D. OUTLOOK AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Outlook
Following decades of long-term positive developments in port performance, the pandemic resulted in
a decline in numerous port performance indicators. In response to the logistics challenges, during the
pandemic, new initiatives towards digitalization and trade facilitation reforms were introduced, and these
seem to be bearing fruit. As the pandemic ended, late 2022 saw many port performance indicators return
to a positive trajectory.

Policy recommendations
Port performance
Port performance indicators contribute to transparency in terms of physical and financial operations, which
in turn helps policy development and regulation. By providing a standardized framework for measuring and
monitoring port activities and outputs, port performance indicators help stakeholders compare ports and
identify trends and gaps in efficiency, leading to reliable assessments of how ports may stay competitive
and improve performance over time.
• Port communities should improve their data acquisition and management and use port performance
indicators, with benchmarks from the entire industry, to gauge where they stand and where there is
potential for improvement.
Knowledge and skills
The challenges ports face, especially in the areas of digitalization and decarbonization lead to new
demands for capacity building.
• Port managers should receive specialized training to enhance their knowledge and leadership skills,
driving digital and decarbonization transformations. This capacity building requires matching budget
and resources.
Public-private collaboration
National Trade Facilitation Committees (NTFC), as stipulated in the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement,
and National Maritime Transport Facilitation Committees, as recommended by the IMO Convention on
Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL), represent important public-private-partnership platforms
for coordinating and implementing policy reforms to facilitate exports, imports and transit.
• Policy reforms should be based on a close dialogue with the business community and maritime
shipping stakeholders, including through national trade facilitation bodies. In countries with both
NTFCs and FAL Committees, these should collaborate and coordinate their activities.
Hinterland connectivity
Port performance and throughput are closely linked to hinterland connectivity. Ports and transit countries
play an essential role in improving access and connectivity for the trade of landlocked countries, which
suffer from geographical and administrative barriers.
• Implementing and establishing transit regimes, corridors, dry ports and other hinterland facilitating
measures are crucial to improving port performance, thus further enhancing the attractiveness of
ports’ connectivity and intermodal potential, both in relation to trans-shipment and transit.
Digitalization and modernization of trade procedures
New technologies provide opportunities for border agencies to simplify and expedite international cross-
border trade, while at the same time controlling and securing international trade compliance related to the
clearance and release of goods.
• There is a need for activities to promote trust and transparency between involved stakeholders to
enable secure and efficient data exchange.
• Cross-border data exchange needs to be interconnected and facilitated between border agencies,
with direct input from the private sector. Real-time data platforms need to be established, including
trade and maritime Single Windows, as stipulated in the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement and the
IMO FAL Convention.

107
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

• Latest technologies and artificial intelligence can help predict and better manage the flows of
goods through ports, manage risks and reduce waiting time, hence facilitate trade, increase port
performance and reduce its carbon footprint.
• Special attention has to be attached to cybersecurity and business continuity plans in order to
minimize risks related to increasing digitalization.

108
 4. PORT PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORT FACILITATION

REFERENCES

AD Ports Group (2023). First Vessel Arrives at Shuwaikh Port Following Launch of Container Shipping Service
from Khalifa Port. Available at https://www.adportsgroup.com/en/news-and-media/2023/04/17/first-
vessel-arrives-at-shuwaikh-port.
Global Maritime Forum (2021). The Next Wave: Green Corridors. Available at www.globalmaritimeforum.
org/content/2021/11/The-Next-Wave-Green-Corridors.pdf.
IMO (2020). Fourth Green House Gas Study. Available at https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/
Pages/Fourth-IMO-Greenhouse-Gas-Study-2020.aspx.
IMO (2023). IMO’s work to cut GHG emissions from ships. Retrieved from https://www.imo.org/en/
MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Cutting-GHG-emissions.aspx.
IMO (2023). Mandatory single window: one year to go. Available at www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/
PressBriefings/pages/Mandatory-Maritime-Single-Window-One-year-to-go-.aspx.
NCTTCA (2021). Impact Assessment of the Northern Corridor Performance Improvement Activities.
Notteboom T and Rodrigue J-P (2005). Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development.
Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 32, issue 3, 297–313.
Port App that collates schedule data heading towards International Cooperation. Available at https://
futuremobilityfinland.fi/port-app-that-collates-schedule-data-heading-towards-international-
cooperation-2/.
Port Authority of Valencia (2023). See also https://www.valenciaport.com.
Rutherford D and M Xiaoli (2020). Limiting engine power to reduce CO2 emissions from existing ships.
ICCT.
Sita A, Nur B, Andi C, and TMA A (2017). Benchmarking Inter-Organizational System Architecture of Trade
Facilitation in Singapore, Hong Kong, Netherlands and USA. International Journal of Trade, Economics
and Finance. Vol. 8, No. 6.
Smart Maritime Network (2023). AD Ports Group to implement new VTMIS across UAE Ports. Available at
Smart maritime network, transport and logistics integration. Available at https://smartmaritimenetwork.
com/2023/04/04/ad-ports-group-to-implement-new-vtmis-across-uae-ports/.
The Maritime Research Centre (2021). Just in Time Arrival of a Ship to a Port. Available at https://www.
merilogistiikka.fi/en/we-research/we-research-just-in-time-arrival-of-a-ship-to-a-port/.
UNCTAD (2022). The SIGNAT System – The ASYCUDA Journey in West Africa: Facilitating Cross-Border
Transit Trade. Available at https://unctad.org/publication/sigmat-system-asycuda-journey-west-africa.
UNCTAD (2023a). TrainForTrade Port Management Programme. Available at https://tft.unctad.org/
thematic-areas/port-management.
UNCTAD (2023b). TrainForTrade Building Port Resilience Against Pandemics course. Available at https://
tft.unctad.org/thematic-areas/port-management/course-building-port-resilience-against-pandemics.
UNCTAD (2023c). TrainForTrade Port Performance Scorecard. Available at https://tft.unctad.org/thematic-
areas/port-management/port-performance-scorecard. Demo version available at https://pps.unctad.
org.
UNCTAD (2023d). Liner Shipping Connectivity Index. Available at https://stats.unctad.org/LSCI.
World Bank (2023a). The Container Port Performance Index 2022 “A comparable Assessment of
Performance based on Vessel Time in Port”.
World Bank (2023b). Logistics Performance Index. Retrieved from https://lpi.worldbank.org.
World Bank (2023c). Port Community Systems for Sustainable Maritime Trade Facilitation and Logistics.
Washington, forthcoming.
WTO (2023). Trade Facilitation Agreement facility. Available at https://www.tfafacility.org/.

109
 REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2023

END NOTES

1
Six components of the LSCI are:
a. The number of scheduled ship calls per week in the country.
b. Deployed annual capacity in 20-foot equivalent units (TEU).
c. The number of regular liner shipping services from and to the country.
d. The number of liner shipping companies that provide services from and to the country.
e. The size in TEU of the largest ships deployed by the scheduled service.
f. The number of other countries that are connected to the country through direct liner shipping
services.
2
The index focuses on the elapsed time from when a ship reaches a port to its departure from the berth
after having completed its cargo exchange.
3
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/05/25/middle-east-container-ports-are-
the-most-efficient-in-the-world.
4
https://www.africanews.com/2022/02/17/throughput-growth-in-moroccan-port-tanger-med//.
5
https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/ports/shanghai-retains-worlds-top-container-port-crown-
marginal-growth#:~:text=The%20port%20of%20Shanghai%20retains,largest%20container%20
port%20in%202022.&text=Last%20year%2C%20container%20volume%20at,port%20for%20
14%20consecutive%20years.
6
https://press.spglobal.com/2023-05-18-Chinas-Yangshan-Port-Tops-New-Container-Port-
Performance-Index.
7
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101596/port-turnaround-times-by-country/.
8
The underlying data are provided by S&P Global Market Intelligence. It is the same underlying data that
are used by the World Bank to generate the CCPI index on the port level. At UNCTAD, for this Review,
selected country averages are presented, but without transforming the data into an index.
9
For global time-in-port statistics see UNCTAD stat at http://stats.unctad.org/maritime.
10
Arrival time: The total elapsed time between the vessel’s automatic identification system (AIS) recorded
arrival at the actual port limit or anchorage (whichever recorded time is the earlier) and all lines fast at
the berth (World Bank, 2023a).

110