ports can make in assisting the whole port community (including partners in the
logistic chain) to deliver compliance with legislation, prevention of pollution,
reduction and mitigation of environmental impacts, sustainable development and
evidence of satisfactory performance. This resulted in the development of the port
practice to include the sustainability performance, as part of the annual corporate
social responsibility and financial report.
Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping currently represent around 2.6% of total
global emissions, and without reduction measures, this share could more than triple by
2050. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set a target of reducing
shipping CO 2 emissions from the shipping sector by ‘at least’ 50% by 2050 compared
to 2008 levels. To achieve this, stringent measures now need to be put into place.
According to the analysis report published by the International Transport Forum
(ITF) in 2018, ports play a significant role in reducing the global carbon footprint of
maritime shipping, and consequently portside measures can significantly add to the
environmental performance of shipping and the decarbonisation of maritime transport (OECD/ITF 2018). Currently 28 of the 100 world’s largest ports (in terms of total
cargo volume handled) offer incentives for environmentally friendly ships: Some US
ports offer fee reductions for ships reducing speed when approaching the port. The
Panama Canal Authority provides priority slot allocation to greener ships. Spain
includes environmental incentives in the tender and licence criteria for the towage
services provided in ports. Shanghai has an emission-trading scheme that includes
ports and domestic shipping. However, green incentives typically apply to the 5% of
the ships calling at a port with an incentive scheme. Only five ports use CO 2 emissions
as a substantial criterion for incentives. The report expands on port-based incentives
for low-emission ships. It links port-based incentives to actual greenhouse gas emissions, moving to a more harmonised application of green port fees.
Notwithstanding the dearth of data, it is clear that the impact of port-based
incentives on global shipping emissions is marginal. Currently only few ports use
indices in which GHG emissions provide a substantial part of the index criteria. Yet,
ports clearly play a hugely important role in helping the shipping sector to manage
the transition to clean shipping. Port-based incentives for GHG emission mitigation
could provide an important supporting role. The first lesson learned is therefore that
ports are stakeholders in this context and that they are taking actions – to both
incentivise cleaner ships and to increase the efficiency of their operations, which can
also have an effect on shipping emissions. Furthermore, the existing port-based
measures establish that market interventions are needed to reward clean performance. The fact that financial incentives have been chosen implies that there is
support for flexible measures to drive behavioural change. However, more emphasis
is needed on monitoring, reporting and verification of the impacts of these measures.
More could also be done to enshrine the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Higher rates of
differentiation between vessels based on their environmental performance could
drive more and faster change. It is possible within the policies to differentiate fees
according to type of vessel enabling the economic activities that can afford to pay to
take more of the responsibility for acting.
A project on the Environmental Impacts of International Shipping and the role of
ports, that took place under the aegis of OECD (OECD 2011), showed that while it is
11 New Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Ports: The Deep Demonstration. . . 179
logistic chain) to deliver compliance with legislation, prevention of pollution,
reduction and mitigation of environmental impacts, sustainable development and
evidence of satisfactory performance. This resulted in the development of the port
practice to include the sustainability performance, as part of the annual corporate
social responsibility and financial report.
Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping currently represent around 2.6% of total
global emissions, and without reduction measures, this share could more than triple by
2050. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set a target of reducing
shipping CO 2 emissions from the shipping sector by ‘at least’ 50% by 2050 compared
to 2008 levels. To achieve this, stringent measures now need to be put into place.
According to the analysis report published by the International Transport Forum
(ITF) in 2018, ports play a significant role in reducing the global carbon footprint of
maritime shipping, and consequently portside measures can significantly add to the
environmental performance of shipping and the decarbonisation of maritime transport (OECD/ITF 2018). Currently 28 of the 100 world’s largest ports (in terms of total
cargo volume handled) offer incentives for environmentally friendly ships: Some US
ports offer fee reductions for ships reducing speed when approaching the port. The
Panama Canal Authority provides priority slot allocation to greener ships. Spain
includes environmental incentives in the tender and licence criteria for the towage
services provided in ports. Shanghai has an emission-trading scheme that includes
ports and domestic shipping. However, green incentives typically apply to the 5% of
the ships calling at a port with an incentive scheme. Only five ports use CO 2 emissions
as a substantial criterion for incentives. The report expands on port-based incentives
for low-emission ships. It links port-based incentives to actual greenhouse gas emissions, moving to a more harmonised application of green port fees.
Notwithstanding the dearth of data, it is clear that the impact of port-based
incentives on global shipping emissions is marginal. Currently only few ports use
indices in which GHG emissions provide a substantial part of the index criteria. Yet,
ports clearly play a hugely important role in helping the shipping sector to manage
the transition to clean shipping. Port-based incentives for GHG emission mitigation
could provide an important supporting role. The first lesson learned is therefore that
ports are stakeholders in this context and that they are taking actions – to both
incentivise cleaner ships and to increase the efficiency of their operations, which can
also have an effect on shipping emissions. Furthermore, the existing port-based
measures establish that market interventions are needed to reward clean performance. The fact that financial incentives have been chosen implies that there is
support for flexible measures to drive behavioural change. However, more emphasis
is needed on monitoring, reporting and verification of the impacts of these measures.
More could also be done to enshrine the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Higher rates of
differentiation between vessels based on their environmental performance could
drive more and faster change. It is possible within the policies to differentiate fees
according to type of vessel enabling the economic activities that can afford to pay to
take more of the responsibility for acting.
A project on the Environmental Impacts of International Shipping and the role of
ports, that took place under the aegis of OECD (OECD 2011), showed that while it is
11 New Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Ports: The Deep Demonstration. . . 179