World ports are executing on planned infrastructure investments, community building and environmental sustainability initiatives. Important gaps have been identified in future fuels readiness, carbon emissions reporting, digitalisation and gender equality. Market trends indicate overall lower container port productivity due to larger ships with increased call sizes and less frequent calls; gains and losses on liner connectivity are split, influenced by geopolitics
The survey results of IAPH’s most-engaged ports from around the world have been analysed in the latest, upgraded version of the IAPH World Ports Tracker written by Professors Theo Notteboom and Thanos Pallis of the Association’s Risk and Resilience technical committee. The regular port members were questioned on all six areas of interest of the World Ports Sustainability Program as well as collecting their views on market prospects, gathering additional data on container port productivity and liner connectivity from external sources.
The results indicate fragmented but sustained progress on sustainability depending on area of interest, region, size and cargo segment, with container shipping connectivity and efficiency impacted by larger vessel call sizes and less calls. The long-term investment outlook for logistics and low and zero-carbon fuel infrastructure in ports remains solid.
IAPH Managing Director Patrick Verhoeven commented: “This new, upgraded version of the Tracker allows us to present detailed trends to our membership on an annual basis on what matters most to them. In addition to the detailed report, we will also share regional analyses later in the year with them as we continue to add value to their membership.”
As indicated in the executive summary in this press release, the main trends identified were as follows:
- Infrastructure investments in ports progress and remain undeterred
- Container terminals lead versus other segments on port expansion plans
- Ports dedicate most environmental monitoring resources on water and air quality and less on underwater noise
- Carbon emissions reporting limited on all three scope levels; 58% of ports have declared targets
- New and future fuels: guidelines, rules and regulations needed for bunkering methanol, hydrogen and ammonia
- Low and zero carbon fuels as commodities at ports: progress visible only on LNG and biofuels
- Solar power dominates on-site renewable power at ports
- Health, safety and security: cybersecurity ranks highest for ports in terms of risk
- There is significant evidence of ports building resilience against disruptions
- Despite progress in digitalising, more efforts needed in implementing a Maritime Single Window, Port Community System and/or Just-in-Time in ports
- Community building retains top billing on ports’ priority lists
- Women’s share of management or board positions is significantly short of the mark in most ports
- Market trends in container ports: larger vessels and call sizes with higher frequency leads to lower port moves per hour across most regions
- Geopolitics influences liner connectivity according to different regions, countries and territories
- Positive forecasts in February in terms of cargo growth by segment less certain now
Professor Thanos Pallis commented : “We would like to thank IAPH’s port members for the time taken on answering such a detailed and comprehensive survey, which inevitably required a lot of cooperation between departments and divisions within port organisations to collate accurate and relevant answers. With this data now secure in the back end of the IAPH membership portal and with anonymity assured for all participants, we will be able to consistently track trends on these key areas of interest for members in terms of sustainability and market trends.”
Professor Theo Notteboom added: “With the world looking like a very different place than it was at the beginning of this year, it makes it all the more important to keep a consistent track of external and geopolitical factors that influence activities and investment decisions made by world ports as they navigate the energy transition, accelerate digitalisation whilst endeavouring to reduce risk and build resilience in their operations. We will also be producing a regional analysis on these trends to allow member ports to track their progress against trends in their own part of the world.”
You can download a summary presentation of the IAPH World Ports Tracker 2025 - sustainability and market trends report here.
About IAPH
Founded in 1955, the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) has developed into a global alliance of 192 port authorities as well as 168 port-related businesses. Comprised of over 80 different nationalities across the world’s continents, member ports handle over one third of the world’s sea-borne trade and well over 60% of the world container traffic. IAPH leads global port industry initiatives on decarbonisation and energy transition, risk and resilience management, and accelerating digitalisation in the maritime transport chain. The IAPH’s World Ports Sustainability Program has grown into the reference database of best practices of ports applying the UN Sustainable Development Goals and integrating them into their businesses - iaphworldports.org.
Photo credit : (c) Deming9120 | Dreamstime.com
Executive summary of the IAPH World Ports Tracker 2025 - sustainability and market trends
Professor Theo Notteboom commented: “Following individual outreach by IAPH to its ports to complete our detailed questionnaire on their new membership portal, we were able to get a decent representative sample of ports around the world in terms of size and cargo volumes, with the majority of responses from IAPH’s European and Asian regions.”
Professor Thanos Pallis added: “With 81 of the most-engaged IAPH member ports providing responses to over forty questions on sustainability and market trends, it stands to reason that many of them will have made progress on sustainability initiatives. This tracker provides good indicators of exactly what trends are emerging, and we will now be able to track those trends moving forward with historical data at our disposal.”
Infrastructure investments in ports progress undeterred
Ports are demonstrating strong performance in executing port infrastructure investments. According to the survey, 69% of ports carried out physical infrastructure projects as planned, while another 22% experienced only minor delays. Significant delays were reported by just 8% of the ports. Even more encouraging progress was observed in the case of inland infrastructure improvements. Nine out of ten ports reported either on-schedule execution or only slight delays. In this category, just 7% experienced major delays, and a very small portion – only 2% – opted to cancel or shelve such projects altogether.
Regarding sustainability-focused investments, such as onshore power supply for seagoing and inland vessels, and renewable energy infrastructure like solar and wind power, execution rates remained consistent. For both categories, 67% of ports reported that these projects were progressing according to schedule. However, investments in solar and wind power encountered more challenges than other sectors. Severe delays were experienced by 17% of ports, and an additional 4% cancelled or postponed these initiatives due to complications.
In contrast, investments in the field of alternative ship fuels faced the fewest obstacles. Over 80% of ports reported that these projects were completed on time, and only 3% experienced significant delays or project cancellations. Notably, across all types of infrastructure initiatives, a small percentage of ports – ranging from 2% to 4% – reported progress ahead of schedule, reflecting instances of exemplary project management and execution. Another noteworthy observation is the global nature of these trends: the survey did not identify an unequal distribution of delays or cancellations of port investments in any region of the world.
A quarter of the respondents indicate they have already implemented onshore power supply (OPS) for harbour craft and port auxiliary vessels. Another 7% are currently implementing for their fleets. Progress is also made for other ship types, in particular, container ships, cruise ships and ferries, with 17%, 10% and 10% of ports, respectively, reporting that OPS is already operational to some degree for such vessel types. The advances towards OPS implementation are the lowest for bulk carriers and tankers.
Instead of the traditional linear model of take-make-dispose, ports are also investing in embracing circularity aim to create closed-loop systems that are more sustainable, cost- effective, and resilient. Most progress has been made so far in the field of dredged material reuse, with 44% of the responding ports having implemented solutions in this area and another 8% moving into the implementation stage. Much of the other main efforts by ports in this field have been dedicated to water reuse and the beneficial use of waste streams. Where ports have industry in the immediate vicinity, some of them are engaged in industrial symbiosis. This is a form of collaboration where different businesses and industries located within or around a port exchange materials, energy, water, and by-products to improve efficiency and reduce waste.
Container terminals lead on port expansion plans
In the container segment, approximately 33% of ports reported that major container terminal capacity expansions or upgrades are expected to become operational in 2025. Similar developments are occurring in the bulk cargo sector, with 22% of ports indicating forthcoming upgrades. In the liquid bulk market, capacity expansions are underway in 20% of the ports surveyed, while upgrades to other cargo terminals are expected in 23% of cases.
By contrast, the expansion of passenger terminal facilities is less common. Only 7% of ports handling non-cruise passenger traffic anticipate new or improved infrastructure in 2025. However, this figure rises to 13% in the case of cruise terminals, reflecting a somewhat more significant investment momentum in this segment of passenger port activities.
Ports dedicate most environmental monitoring resources on water and air quality and less on underwater noise
Four out of five ports monitor water quality. Water quality issues can arise from a multitude of factors, such as water runoff from port pavements, ballast and bilge water discharges from vessels, spills, and dredging impacts. Almost the same percentage of ports monitor air quality, with two-thirds of respondents indicating that they monitor water consumption. The same percentage applies to noise and carbon footprint. Underwater noise pollution is the least widely monitored (only 11% of ports). The measurement of groundwater quality and marine bio-invasion is more common, although not very widely practised.
Carbon emissions reporting limited on all three scope levels; 58% of ports have declared targets
Scope 1 emissions concern greenhouse gases that a port or logistics company emits from sources it owns or controls directly. Scope 2 emissions are released by off-site and upstream energy providers when a company makes a purchase. Scope 3 includes indirect emissions needed to keep the organisation’s business running. They arise across the value chain, both upstream and downstream . About 29% of ports do not regularly measure their carbon footprint. Only half of the ports surveyed extend their carbon footprint calculations to include partially or fully Scope 3 emissions, while only 9% limit their calculation to Scope 1 emissions.
It is widely acknowledged that all sectors of the economy need to decarbonise by 2050 to remain on track for the 1.5-degree temperature rise pathway. This imperative is echoed in the IMO Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Strategy, which targets the decarbonisation of international shipping by, or around, the same year. Encouragingly, 58% of ports worldwide appear to be taking proactive steps, publicly announcing their commitments to reach carbon neutrality before the 2050 deadline on different scope levels.
ISO 14001 is the most widely recognised Environmental Management System standard used by ports. It emphasises continuous improvement through the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” cycle. 44% of the port authorities have acquired this form of certification. European standards (EMAS and EcoPorts PERS) certification account for 28% of respondents which correlate with most European ports and some ports outside Europe using these standards. What is significant is that 37% of ports indicate that they have no port certification under an environmental management system.
Nonetheless, 63% of respondents indicate they have proactively invested in ecological restoration as part of the port's broader environmental policies and responsibilities. About 44% of the surveyed ports reported that they have invested in ecological restoration initiatives as part of new development project. Some common and impactful ecological restoration initiatives found in seaports around the world include coastal wetland restoration (e.g., mangroves); artificial reefs and habitat structures; bird habitat creation (e.g., bird nesting areas and mudflats); green buffer zones and ecological corridors; and fish passage and spawning habitats.
New and future fuels: guidelines, rules and regulations needed for bunkering methanol, hydrogen and ammonia
With the shipping industry moving toward regulated decarbonisation, low and zero carbon fuels will play a crucial role in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with ports needing to invest in bunkering as well as production, storage and transportation infrastructure. It is expected that no single fuel will dominate the future of shipping. Instead, a mix of LNG, methanol, biofuels, ammonia, and hydrogen will be key to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The pace of adoption of these fuels will strongly depend on the fuel availability and infrastructure in ports, and on policy initiatives.
Rules and procedures for the safe bunkering of low- and zero-carbon marine fuels are not widely implemented, as these go hand in hand with respective bunkering requests in ports. LNG (operational in 33% of ports) and biofuels (24%) show the best progress, while ammonia and hydrogen still have a long way to go. It is promising that a fair share of the respondents is in the inception or design stage in the field of such rules and procedures. Since 2012, the IAPH Clean Marine Fuels (CMF) working group has brought together experts from frontrunner ports to develop such supporting tools and methodologies and now a Port Readiness Level tool has been developed by leading ports to self-assess their progress as a receiving port for vessels propelled by the new fuels, as a bunkering hub and/or as a production, storage and import/export hub for the new fuels as commodities.
Low and zero carbon fuels as commodities at ports: progress visible only on LNG and biofuels
As specific ports look ahead to developing infrastructure to accommodate the future import and export new low and zero carbon fuels as a commodity, LNG (operational in 33% of ports) and biofuels (operational in 24% of ports) show the most significant progress to date, with methanol not far behind. Ammonia and hydrogen remain in the early stages of adoption.
Solar power dominates on-site renewable power at ports
Renewable electricity produced onsite in port areas relies heavily on solar power – four out of five ports report solar energy production in the respective areas, whereas only windmills can be found in 15% of the harbor areas considered. Onshore wind turbines in port areas are mostly found on breakwaters and at cargo terminal sites.
Health, safety and security: cybersecurity ranks highest for ports in terms of risk
Cybersecurity threats rank by far as the most critical risk factor perceived by port authorities. No less than 62% of the respondents consider cyberattacks a high risk. Natural disasters and climate change are considered a high-risk factor by 44% and 38% of ports, respectively. Oil spills followed by illicit trade and organised crime complete the top risk factors considered by port authorities. Despite the tense geopolitical situation in the world, geopolitical considerations are considered a high risk by only a quarter of the respondents, with only one out of ten port authorities considering social unrest a high-risk factor. Regional variations are significant for these two latter factors.
Evidence of ports building resilience against disruptions
Over three-quarters of the ports regularly undertake emergency drills and exercises involving all relevant stakeholders. The same percentage of port authorities have developed an emergency management response and coordination framework to address their priority risks. More than 81% of surveyed port authorities have established procedures for coordinating, collaborating, and sharing resources with relevant parties during major incidents.
About 72% of the respondents have undertaken a threat or hazard identification and risk assessment to identify main risk factors, and 68% have implemented a business continuity plan to cope with potential disruptions. There is still room for improvement - between 14% and 20% of responding ports indicate they have only partly developed actions in the listed areas.
Despite progress in digitalising, more efforts needed in implementing an MSW, PCS and/or JIT in ports
Over the ports who responded to the survey on digitalisation, just over a quarter have started to implemented solutions in order to optimise port calls, with approximately half of the respondents having implemented a maritime single window (MSW) and/or port community system (PCS). This compares favourably to the 34% of 111 ports who reported their implementation of electronic data exchange following the IMO FAL requirement back in late 2020. The dial has moved slightly.
Unfortunately, the percentage of ports or countries who have yet to commence their digital journey for an MSW or PCS still lie at 29% and 36% respectively, which are approximately the same levels compared to the 31.5% of ports that had not commenced the path towards electronic data exchange in the IAPH survey taken on the IMO FAL requirements back at the end of 2020.
One plus point to take away is that on the subject of cybersecurity, 83% of of the ports indicate that cybersecurity is consistently considered in the implementation process of emerging technologies, although specifics on exactly what elements are taken into account are not specified in the survey. What is a fact is that 47% of the respondents do coordinate with other stakeholders in their maritime supply chain on cybersecurity.
Over half of the respondents have adopted drones and some form of automation in their port, with over a third including 5G, AI and and internet of things (IOT) in their operations.
One-third of ports have set up a separate innovation department within the organization, and chief innovation officers are found in 11% of the port authorities surveyed.
Community building retains top billing on ports’ priority lists
With the largest number of submissions overall to the IAPH World Ports Sustainability Program database, ports’ engagement with their communities applying multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals are patently evident. Almost three out of four responding ports regularly organise events open to the public (such as open port days). Seven out of ten ports have established procedures and structures enhancing systematic consultation with community stakeholders as part of decision-making processes. Sixty per cent of respondents have invested in educational and training programs targeting skills required for the current and future port workforce and attracting talent to the industry. Just over half of the port authorities have invested in supporting vulnerable local communities, reducing poverty, and addressing inequalities. For all the above cases, only between 18% and 22% of surveyed ports indicate they have partly engaged in such activities implying that very few port authorities remain completely inactive in terms of community-building.
Women’s share of management or board positions significantly short of the mark in most ports
The share of women in port supervisory boards or similar bodies is low compared to the situation across all levels of the port authority. Approximately 17% of ports report that women make up more than 31% of supervisory boards, while this figure amounts to 47% when considering all levels of the organization. However, in 44% of cases, women’s share in supervisory boards or similar is below 10%. This share reaches 16% when considering all levels of the port authority. In very few cases, women are represented in more than half of the workforce in their organisations.
Market trends in container ports: larger vessels and call sizes with higher frequency leads to lower port moves per hour across most regions
In most world regions, between 2019 and 2024, the number of container vessel calls decreased, as did the frequency of calls by containerships that are larger than 8,500 TEU capacity. At the same time, the size of calls increased in virtually all world regions.
The increase in TEU handled per containership call becomes even more significant when viewed in the context of its evolution since 2019. This sustained growth has placed considerable pressure on existing operational models.
Container port productivity is a multi-dimensional construct, with operational efficiency standing among its critical components. Container moves per hour are among the most indicative indicators of such efficiency; although it does not provide a thorough performance assessment, monitoring it offers a useful insight into the evolution and challenges of port operations.
With the size of calls increased in all world regions, in Q4 2024 the number of container moves per hour was lower, with the exceptions being Africa, North Europe and Oceania.
Port productivity levels saw strong year-on-year growth in Africa (+29%) and Oceania (+23%), two regions that recovered from equally large productivity declines the previous year (i.e. in 2023 compared to 2022).
Geopolitics influences liner connectivity according to different regions, countries and territories
A comparison of the Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI) in Q4 2024 with the same quarter in 2023 highlights the challenges faced by European and Mediterranean ports in maintaining liner shipping connectivity – largely driven by geopolitical tensions in other parts of the world. Except for Spain in the Mediterranean and the UK in Northern Europe, all other European locations among the top five most connected in their respective subregions registered a decline in LSCI. The most notable drop was in Egypt, with a decrease of 5%.
In Asia, the picture was mixed. In Northeast Asia, China and, to a lesser extent, South Korea recorded positive LSCI trends. In Southeast Asia, marginal gains were observed in Thailand and Indonesia. Africa saw a more positive trend overall, particularly in its best-connected ports. Ghana and Ivory Coast experienced improved connectivity, while Nigeria recorded a substantial 17% increase. This contrasted with a sharp 12% decline in South Africa.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the top four locations showed positive developments, with Brazil registering a significant 15% increase in LSCI. Similarly, in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, liner shipping connectivity improved in four key countries. India (+5%), Sri Lanka (+8%), and Pakistan (+6%) saw substantial gains, while the UAE recorded a modest 1% increase. However, Saudi Arabia, the third-best connected country in the region, experienced a significant 19% drop.
Positive forecasts in February in terms of cargo growth by segment less certain now
Although the responses were collected before the introduction of extensive tariffs by the US Government and the ensuing trade war, the results are notably more optimistic than those recorded a year earlier, when IAPH member ports participated in a similar survey published in the sixth issue of the IAPH World Ports Tracker.
In all the segments (containers, dry bulk, liquids and gases, and passenger cruise traffic) positive or stable year-on-year figures were registered by the majority of respondents.
These responses were collected in late February and March 2025, before the announcement of the potential introduction of tariffs by the United States government. Once implemented, and depending on their scale, these policies have the potential to exert a significant impact on global maritime trade dynamics: they might affect bilateral trade volumes and container throughput on some, or many, major trade lanes such as the traditional east- west maritime corridors, with profound implications for global shipping demand and port services demand. Beyond shifting the short- and long-term outlook for the world’s ports, this evolution underlines the importance of regularly tracking shifts in the market trends.
Theo Notteboom is Professor of port and maritime economics. He is Chair Professor North Sea Port at the Maritime Institute of Ghent University, and a Professor at the Faculty of Business and Economics of the University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy. He is co-director of Porteconomics.eu, past president and vice-president of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), and a member of the IAPH Risk and Resilience Committee.
Thanos Pallis is Professor in port and maritime economics and policy at the Department of Port Management and Shipping, at the University of Piraeus, Greece, and director of the University’s Laboratory for Integrated Port Economy. He is co-director of Porteconomics.eu, immediate past president of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), and a member of the IAPH Risk and Resilience Committee and the IAPH Cruise Committee.