The World Bank’s Container Port Performance Index 2020 to 2024: trends and lessons learnt is now in its fifth edition.
This edition represents an evolution of the product with added coverage provided on trends over the five years in addition to its core function which the World Bank describes as “providing a comparative global assessment of container port performance.” The key measure of this is total vessel time in port which is assessed by combining two complementary approaches (referred to as “administrative” and “statistical”) to produce what is seen as “a robust and normalised score” by the World Bank and its co-authors of the report, S&P Global Market Intelligence.
In turn, the net result of this, as viewed in practical terms, is a ranking of just over 400 ports.
The foreword of the new report states that, “it builds on the strong foundation laid by its predecessors.”
BUT for some this is not the case with various points made that question the veracity of the methodology and which suggest there is significant scope to refine it.
Our article on p24, CPPI: Room for Improvement summarises the situation. It further highlights the reality that while the purpose of the Index in the eyes of the authors is to “serve as a diagnostic and planning tool to help port authorities, governments and private stakeholders develop a constructive dialogue on investment, reform and innovation in port infrastructure and operations” the more common usage is to benchmark ports against each other – a role the World Bank actually states the CPPI is not intended to fulfil. Given this, it would seem there is a case for the stronger marketing of the Index’s intended role to promote this understanding.
Even so, this does not negate the case for refining the methodology employed.
A more refined approach is also suggested in our article IMO MEPC landmine in this issue. There were points of contention in relation to economic and technical issues in conjunction with the proposed Net Zero Framework but the argument is put that its failure to gain acceptance was as much about a switch away from a proven approach to gain consensus as anything else.
The approach adopted to achieve agreement prior to the next vote at IMO is seen as vital and worthy of deep consideration.
