Jan Hoffmann joined the World Bank in January 2025 as Global Lead, Maritime Transport and Ports. His responsibilities include the Container Port Performance Index, the Port Reform Toolkit, and supporting the World Bank’s port and maritime transport projects in each country.
From 2003 to 2024, Hoffmann worked for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and from 2016 he served as Head of the Organization’s Trade Logistics Branch. He developed and led technical assistance programs on trade and transport facilitation, co-authored and coordinated the Maritime Transport Survey, and initiated the Maritime Country Profiles, the International Transport Costs Dataset, and the Liner Shipping Connectivity Index.
He studied in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain, and holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Hamburg. He serves on the boards of directors of several journals and professional associations, and from 2014 to 2018 he was president of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME).
To begin, please describe your position at the World Bank and the activities you carry out in your organization.
I joined the World Bank at the beginning of 2025, after working for 30 years at the United Nations (IMO, ECLAC, and UNCTAD). Here in Washington, D.C., I am part of the Global Unit, which supports our colleagues and clients in countries and regions.
The World Bank—as a bank—provides loans to our client countries. These development projects are primarily implemented from country and regional offices, which interact directly with ministries of transport, ports, and maritime authorities. From the Global Unit at headquarters in Washington, D.C., I support the development and implementation of these projects and loans with analysis, data, contacts, peer reviews, training, and consulting. We call this “Cross Support.” Projects I have collaborated on in 2025 have covered, among other things, maritime connectivity in the Caribbean, port expansion in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, the potential of a pivot port in Tunisia, the energy transition in Asia, and port efficiency in African ports. It is a pleasure and a privilege to collaborate with such highly motivated and skilled colleagues.
In addition to supporting colleagues in various countries, I also participate in global knowledge and statistics projects. During 2025, with the maritime team in Washington, we published the third edition of the Port Reform Toolkit, the Container Port Performance Index (CPPI) 2020 to 2024, and a report on energy efficiency. We also contribute to global and regional events, disseminating and sharing our reports and analyses.
Can you explain the results of the CPPI 2020-24 report?
Over the past five years, the Container Port Performance Index, developed by the World Bank and S&P Global, has established itself as a key reference for understanding the operational efficiency (we measure the time that ships spend in ports) of container ports globally.
What we have seen during this period is how the CPPI accurately reflects the major disruptions and recoveries in international logistics chains. From 2021 onward, the impact of COVID-19 became evident: congestion, delays, and equipment shortages were particularly noticeable in North America and Europe, where lead times and freight rates reached historic levels. The lowest point in the global CPPI average was recorded in 2022, at the height of the global logistics crisis. 2023 brought a significant recovery. Congestion decreased, and freight markets stabilized. However, in 2024, we again faced significant challenges, this time stemming from the Red Sea crisis and restrictions in the Panama Canal, which forced route rerouting and created new inefficiencies, although the impact was less dramatic than during the pandemic.
What’s interesting is that the CPPI not only measures efficiency, but also the ports’ ability to adapt to external shocks. The CPPI is more than a ranking; it’s a diagnostic tool that allows you to identify bottlenecks, compare trends, and evaluate the impact of policies and investments.
Ports that have improved their performance in recent years often share advances in digitalization, continuous operations, and efficient coordination with logistics partners.
The report explains that the methodology allows for comparing “apples and oranges,” meaning that both large and small ports can achieve high scores in the CPPI. Among the notable cases of improvement are Dakar, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mersin, Port Said, and Posorja, where the combination of infrastructure investments, public-private partnerships, and operational reforms has been key to reducing turnaround times and increasing competitiveness.
Regarding methodology, the CPPI uses empirical data from over 400 ports. We combine AIS data on vessel positions with data that the world’s leading shipping companies share with S&P Global on the number of containers loaded and unloaded during a port call. This is the added value of the CPPI: combining data from these two sources and applying a robust methodology that allows us to assign a CPPI to ports of all sizes.
What are the main conclusions of the Energy Efficiency report that you have just published?
In the shipping world, it sometimes seems that the entire debate about the energy transition revolves around alternative fuels and large technological investments. However, the latest World Bank report on energy efficiency in maritime transport demonstrates that there is enormous, and largely untapped, potential in efficiency measures that are already within our reach. It’s like that classic joke about the economics professor and his student: they’re walking along and see a $20 bill on the ground. The student mentions it to his professor, but the professor says, “That can’t be. If there were a $20 bill on the ground, someone would have picked it up by now.” The difference between theory and practice: in shipping, there are plenty of $20 bills lying around, and surprisingly, nobody picks them up.
The report shows that energy efficiency measures can reduce emissions in the sector by up to 40%, and, most interestingly, half of that potential can be achieved at zero cost or even with net savings. In other words, there are solutions that pay for themselves through fuel savings and, moreover, improve companies’ competitiveness. For example, speed optimization is one of the most effective measures, especially for container ships, while bulk carriers can take advantage of technologies such as wind-assisted propulsion. Tankers have more limitations, but there is also room for improvement.
However, the reality is that many of these solutions are not implemented due to a series of economic and organizational barriers, and above all, the well-known “split incentives” (I think the best translation would be “incentive misalignment”). Often, the one who pays for the efficiency investment is not the one who directly benefits from the savings. For example, the shipowner invests in an improvement, but if the vessel is chartered on time, the fuel savings are enjoyed by the charterer, not the owner. This discourages investment, even though the overall benefit is clear. Furthermore, the lack of reliable information, limited access to financing, and organizational inertia also hinder the adoption of these measures.
One of my favorite measures, and one I consider a true win-win-win, is port call optimization. It’s a solution that benefits everyone: shipowners and operators reduce costs because they can adjust speed and avoid unnecessary waiting at anchor, the world reduces emissions, and ports that implement PCO improve their performance in indices like the CPPI—which we just discussed. It’s one of those rare measures where everyone wins, and yet it remains underutilized due to a lack of coordination, data standards, and, again, the divided incentives among the various actors in the logistics chain.
Ultimately, energy efficiency in shipping is like a $20 bill lying there, waiting to be picked up. It’s not just an opportunity to reduce costs and emissions, but also to gain time and flexibility in the transition to alternative fuels. But to seize it, we need to overcome the information, incentive, and corporate culture barriers that currently prevent us from reaching out and collecting that bill. And above all, we need greater collaboration and a holistic vision so that measures like optimizing port calls become the norm, not the exception.
What is your vision for maritime port trade and development in the coming years?
The question of the vision for maritime trade and port development in the coming years is fundamental, and if I may, I would answer it in three steps, because the reality we face is complex. I will attempt to provide a structured overview.
First, what I see is a scenario of increasing risks. Shipping and ports are facing an uncertainty and volatility that we haven’t seen in decades.
The recent past was marked by the globalization of maritime service production, large and relatively predictable markets, and a degree of stability in the rules of the game. Today, however, we face a multitude of factors that generate uncertainty: the energy transition and the arrival of new fuels, the volatility of energy and carbon prices, the volatility of tariffs and trade barriers, political and geopolitical instability, technological acceleration, vertical and horizontal consolidation between shipping and terminals, and, of course, climate change and its impacts on port infrastructure and operations.
All of this adds to the fact that futures markets are going to be “thinner”—that is, less diversified and more segmented by routes, owners, and fuels. In the past, a single technology, fuel, company, or vessel type could operate in broad global markets. Now, increasingly, we see technologies, fuels, companies, and vessels that are only viable in smaller markets, segmented by regulations, infrastructure availability, or even political reasons. This fragmentation increases volatility: each of these “thinner” markets is more sensitive to shocks, regulatory changes, logistical disruptions, or demand fluctuations. The result is an environment where volatility and uncertainty are the new normal.
Second, this increased risk has direct consequences for investment. Faced with a more uncertain environment, investors demand higher returns to compensate for the risk. This translates into a reduced willingness to invest, both in new fleet capacity and in port and energy infrastructure.
The result is that the supply curve shifts to the left: there is less available capacity than there would be in a more predictable environment. This, in turn, generates more volatility and, in many cases, higher freight rates. It’s a vicious cycle: more risk, less investment, less capacity, more volatility, and higher prices.
This phenomenon is not unique to shipping; we also see it in energy, logistics, and port infrastructure. Large projects, which require long-term horizons and regulatory stability, are particularly affected. Investors expect clarity in the rules of the game, but the reality is that the rules are constantly changing, and this hinders long-term investment decisions.
Third, there is a need to invest in resilience. Users and providers of maritime services do not want to put all their eggs in one basket. Recent experience, from the pandemic to extreme weather events and geopolitical disruptions, has taught us that resilience is not a luxury, but a strategic necessity.
This implies, on the one hand, building redundant capacity: having buffers, alternative logistics, alternative routes and suppliers, and the ability to respond to shocks. On the other hand, it implies investing in data integration and analysis. Digitalization and systems integration allow for anticipating disruptions, optimizing operations, and making informed decisions in real time. Ports and logistics chains that invest in analytical capabilities and data integration are those that have best navigated recent volatility. Furthermore, resilience requires a collaborative vision: coordination among ports, shipping lines, terminals, authorities, and customers is fundamental for managing shared risks and responding quickly to challenges.
Finally, we cannot forget that governance and regulation play a central role. Regulatory frameworks must be clear, predictable, and adaptable, and—ideally—multilateral and global, enabling innovation and investment while also guaranteeing competition, transparency, and the protection of public interests. International experience shows that the most successful port governance models are those that achieve a balance between business autonomy, public oversight, and collaboration among stakeholders. Change management, performance measurement, and transparency are key elements to ensure that ports remain drivers of economic and social development in an increasingly challenging environment.
In summary, the vision for maritime port trade and development in the coming years is that of a sector that must navigate much more turbulent waters, where resilience, flexibility and adaptability will be as important as efficiency and competitiveness.
