Review of Initiatives and Methodologies to Reduce CO2 Emissions and Climate Change Effects in Ports
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Climate Change and Carbon Footprint Initiatives
3. Initiatives Related to Climate Change and Carbon Footprint in the Maritime Sector
4. Research on Existing Methodologies
4.1. Ports
4.2. Port Terminals
4.3. Ships
5. Strengths and Opportunities for Further Development
- In most of the methodologies, vessels’ emissions are taken into account. Taking into consideration the fact that, in 2012, GHG emissions from international shipping already represented already 2.2% of total CO2 emissions [8] and that it is also known that such emissions could grow by between 50% and 250% by 2050, it is a very important sign of the awareness of the port sector to include the calculation of emissions from waterborne vehicles in the existing methodologies.
- In around 60% of the methods, not only CO2 emissions are calculated, but also other GHG emissions are taken into account such as CH4 and N2O. This is very important, since, as mentioned previously in Section 2, the warming potential of CH4 and N2O is much higher than that of CO2. Therefore, it is really important to take into account all the gases in the carbon footprint calculation to obtain a real estimate.
- In more than half of the cases, the calculation has been done based on standard methods such as the GHG protocol, IPCC, WPCI and ISO 14064. This makes the calculation more reliable and standard since all these methods should include the same parameters.
- In almost all of the studies, all the emission sources mentioned in the standard guidelines (direct or indirect) are not calculated. For example, on some occasions, some sources, like emissions from construction equipment or emissions resulting from energy use in rented out buildings are not calculated. In order to obtain comprehensive and realistic figures on GHG emissions and carbon footprint in ports, all emission sources should be taken into account.
- In most of the cases, emissions from waste operations that can take place in a port such as incinerators or wastewater treatment plants are not included in the calculation. This is an opportunity for further enhancement of the existing methods. These emissions should be taken into account, where they exist, since they are sources of CO2 emissions that should be counted in the total carbon footprint of a port.
- In most of the studies, scopes are not defined based on the standard methods. For example, in one port, scopes are divided into inside port emissions, outside port emissions and other emissions. In another method, water consumption is calculated in scope 3.
- In around 70% of the cases, emissions from employees’ commuting are not included. These are a very important source of emissions in scope 3. Therefore, their inclusion could help the existing methods to obtain more realistic results of the carbon footprint.
- In those studies, in which information was available, it has been seen that, in general, estimates are used for the calculation and not real data.
- In around 65% of cases, some of the recognized scopes or parts of them are excluded. For example, the calculation of the scope 3 emissions is not taken into account in some ports or scope 2 is excluded from the total GHG calculation in others. To obtain a real figure of carbon footprint in ports, it is recommended to calculate emissions of the three scopes.
- In around 60% of the studies, the whole set of scope 3 emissions (i.e., emissions from tenants, vessels and employees’ commuting) are not calculated. Therefore, the total amount of CO2 emissions would not present a real figure for the carbon footprint in that particular port.
- In about 60%of the studies where a tool has been developed (five cases), access to this tool is not possible.
- In more than half of the studies, the methodology is not fully described. Therefore, it is not possible to reproduce it. This could be easily solved, and, in this way, other port agents could use it.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wright, P. Impacts of climate change on ports and shipping. MCCIP Sci. Rev. 2013, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gularte Quintana, C.; Munhoz Olea, P.; Raggiabdallah, P.; Costa Quintana, A. Port environmental management: Innovations in a Brazilian public port. RAI Rev. Adm. Inov. 2016, 13, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darbra, R.M.; Ronza, A.; Casal, J.; Stojanovic, T.A.; Wooldridge, C. The Self Diagnosis Method. A new methodology to assess environmental management in sea ports. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2004, 48, 420–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teerawattana, R.; Yang, Y. Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2019, 35, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ESPO (European Sea Ports Organisation). Environmnetal Report 2019 EcoPorts in Sights 2019; ESPO: Abertillery, UK, 2019; pp. 1–23. Available online: https://www.espo.be/media/EnvironmentalReport-2019FINAL.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2019).
- Eyring, V.; IsaksenI, S.A.; Berntsen, T.; Collins, W.J.; CorbettJ, J.; Endresen, O.; Grainger, R.G.; Moldanova, J.; Schlager, H.; Stevenson, D.S. Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 44, 4735–4771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IAPH (International Association of Ports and Harbors). IAPH Tool Box for Port Clean Air Programs. 2010. Available online: http://iaphtoolbox.wpci.nl/DRAFTIAPHTOOLBOXdea.pdf (accessed on 16 March 2019).
- IMO (International Maritime Organization). Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014. 2014. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/ThirdGreenhouseGasStudy/GHG3ExecutiveSummaryandReport.pdf (accessed on 16 March 2019).
- Greenport. Balancing Environmental Challenges with Economics Demands. Reports on an Emissions Survey Undertaken at GreenPort Congress. GreenPort Magazine. 2019. Issue Summer. p. 15. Available online: https://issuu.com/mercatormedia/docs/_greenport_summer_2019_flipbook (accessed on 18 August 2019).
- Becker, A.; Inoue, S.; Fischer, M. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: Knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators. Climatic. Chang. 2011, 110, 5–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Arcilla, A.; Mösso, C.; Sierra, J.P.; Mestres, M.; Harzallah, A.; Senouci, M.; Raey, M. Climatic Drivers of Potential Hazards in Mediterranean Coasts. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, 617–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Climate Change Synthesis Report (AR4). 2008. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2019).
- Peters, G.P. Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010, 2, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiedmann, T.; Minx, J. A Definition of ‘Carbon Footprint’. In Ecological Economics Research Trends; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 1–11. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.467.6821&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 8 April 2019).
- POST. Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation. 2006. Available online: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2019).
- Sprinz, D.; Luterbacher, U. (Eds.) International Relations and Global Climate Change; Climate Policy: Potsdam, Germany, 1996; Available online: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/publications/pikreports/.files/pr21.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2019).
- IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). IPCC Factsheet: Timeline—Highlights of IPCC History. 2015. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/04/FS_timeline.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2019).
- IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2006. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2006gls_all_in.zip (accessed on 18 September 2019).
- IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2019, Volume 54. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/2019rf_all_in.zip (accessed on 19 November 2019).
- UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). United Nations Framework Convention. 1992. Available online: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2018).
- United Nations. Kyoto Protocol, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law. 1998, 7, pp. 214–217. Available online: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2018).
- GRI (Global Reporting Initiatives). A Closer Look at Water and GHG Emissions Disclosure Mapping Reporting Practice to an Investor Perspective. 2019. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/A-Closer-Look-At-Water-and-GHG-Emissions-Disclosure.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2019).
- WRI and WBSCD (World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development). GHG Protocol. 2004. Available online: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2019).
- NACCA (National Association of Clean Air Agencies). Background and History of EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Under the Clean Air Act & National Association of Clean Air Agencies’ Comments on EPA GHG Regulatory and Policy Proposals. 2013. Available online: http://4cleanair.org/Documents/Background_and_History_EPA_Regulation_GHGs-Aug2013-post.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2019).
- Ecofys. The Gold Standard, Voluntary Emission Reductions. 2006. Available online: https://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/developermanual_gs-ver_v.1.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2019).
- ISO (International Organization for Standard). ISO 14064-1 First Edition, Greenhouse Gases, Part1 Specification with Guidance at the Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals. 2006. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14064:-1:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 15 July 2019).
- ISO (International Organization for Standard). ISO 14064-1 Second Edition, Greenhouse Gases, Part1 Specification with Guidance at the Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals. 2018. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14064:-1:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 15 July 2019).
- MITECO (Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica). Calculadora de Huella de Carbono de una Organización. Alcance 1+2. 2019, pp. 1–21. Available online: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/cambio-climatico/temas/mitigacion-politicas-y-medidas/calculadoras.aspx (accessed on 17 February 2020).
- OCCC (Catalan Office for Climate Change). Practical Guide for Calculate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. 2019, pp. 0–125. Available online: https://canviclimatic.gencat.cat/web/.content/04_ACTUA/Com_calcular_emissions_GEH/guia_de_calcul_demissions_de_co2/190301_Practical-guide-calculating-GHG-emissions_OCCC.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2020).
- United Nations Institute for Training and Research. Resource Guide for Advanced Learning on the Scientific Fundamentals of Climate Change. 2015. Available online: https://www.uncclearn.org/sites/default/files/guide_scientific_fundamentals.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2019).
- United Nations, Paris Agreement, Adoption of the Paris Agreement. 2015. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2018).
- Le Quéré, C.; Andrew, R.M.; Canadell, J.G.; Sitch, S.; Korsbakken, J.I.; Peters, G.P.; Manning, A.; Boden, T.A.; Tans, P.P.; Houghton, R.A.; et al. Global Carbon Budget. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2016, 8, 605–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carbon Trust. Carbon Footprinting. 2017. Available online: https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/carbon-footprinting-guide (accessed on 19 February 2020).
- El National, Les Deuclaus de L’acord de la Cimera del Clima de Madrid. 2019. Available online: https://www.elnacional.cat/ca/societat/claus-acords-cimera-clima-2019_451737_102.html (accessed on 10 February 2020).
- IMO (International Maritime Organization). Air Pollution, Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2019. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed on 5 April 2019).
- WPCI (World Ports Climate Initiative). Carbon Footprinting for Ports, Guidance. 2010. Document. Available online: http://wpci.iaphworldports.org/data/docs/carbonfootprinting/PV_DRAFT_WPCI_Carbon_Footprinting_Guidance_Doc-June-30-2010_scg.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2018).
- PIANC (World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure). Sustainable Ports’A Guide for Port Authorities. 2014. Available online: https://sustainableworldports.org/wp-content/uploads/EnviCom-WG-150-FINAL-VERSION.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2019).
- PIANC (World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure). EnviCom 188: Carbon Management for Port and Navigation Infrastructure. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2019, 53, 1689–1699. [Google Scholar]
- PIANC (World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure). Climate Change Adaptation Planning for Ports and Inland Waterways. EnviCom WG Report No 178. 2020. Available online: https://www.pianc.org/uploads/publications/reports/WG-178.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2020).
- CCWG (Clean Cargo Working Group). Clean Cargo Working Group Carbon Emissions Accounting Methodology. 2015. Available online: https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_CCWG_Carbon_Emissions_Methodology_2015.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2019).
- IMO (International Maritime Organization). Initial IMO strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships (IMO). 2018, Volume 304, pp. 1–11. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/ResolutionMEPC.304(72)E.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2019).
- Wpsp (World Ports Sustainability Program). World Ports Sustainability Program. 2018. Available online: https://sustainableworldports.org/wp-content/uploads/wpsp-declaration.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2019).
- Greenport. Cooperation on Climate Action. 2019. Available online: https://www.greenport.com/news101/europe/cooperation-on-climate-action (accessed on 27 January 2020).
- BPO. Collaboration Maritime Industry’s Path to 2030. 2019. Available online: http://www.bpoports.com/collaboration-maritime-industry’s-path-to-2030.html (accessed on 6 April 2019).
- ESPO (European Sea Ports Organisation). ESPO’s Roadmap to Implement the European Green Deal Objectives in Ports. 2020. Available online: https://www.espo.be/media/ESPOGreenDealpositionpaperGreenDeal-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2020).
- Laboratorio de Ingeniería Sostenible. 9 Years of Carbon Footprint in a Spanish Port. 2004. Available online: http://www.lis.edu.es/uploads/06a2431c_85a6_4952_a7da_f4a90e3309b5.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2018).
- Carballo-penela, A.; Mateo-mantecón, I.; Doménech, J.L. From the motorways of the sea to the green corridors’ carbon footprint: The case of a port in Spain. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012, 55, 765–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Clean Air Action Plan Technology Advancement Program. 2015 Annual Report. 2016. Available online: http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CAAP-2017-Draft-Discussion-Document-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2019).
- Port of Oslo, CO2 Emissions for the Calendar Year 2008. 2008. Available online: http://www.renoslofjord.no/sfiles/52/50/5/file/co2-footprint-port-of-oslo-2008-1.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2018).
- MED (Europe in Mediterranean), = ABACUS, A Port Area Energy Consumption and C02 Footprint Calculation Tool. 2012. Available online: https://www.programmemed.eu/uploads/tx_ausybibliomed/CLIMEPORT_7_ECO_ABACUS_User_manual_EN.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2019).
- MED (Europe in Mediterranean). Methodology Assessment Handbook, CLIMEPORT Project, Program co Financed by the European Regional Development Fund. 2011. Available online: https://www.programmemed.eu/uploads/tx_ausybibliomed/CLIMEPORT_2_Component_3_-_Executive_Report_EN.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2019).
- Port of Rotterdam Authority. CO2 Footprint Port of Rotterdam Authority. 2013. Available online: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/sites/default/files/downloads/co2_footprint_en_factsheet2017.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2018).
- Port of Rotterdam. Port of Rotterdam CO2 Neutral. 2017. Available online: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/sites/default/files/port-of-rotterdam-co2-neutral.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2019).
- Port of Stockholm. Annual Report and Sustainability Report. 2017. Available online: https://www.stockholmshamnar.se/siteassets/trycksaker/ports_of_stockholm_2017.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2019).
- Port of Gothenburg. Sustainability Report of Gothenburg Port Authority 2018 Sustainable Port. 2018. Available online: https://www.portofgothenburg.com/FileDownload/?contentReferenceID=14781 (accessed on 11 April 2019).
- Port of Barcelona. Climate Strategy. 2013, 53, pp. 1689–1699. Available online: http://www.portdebarcelona.cat/en/web/el-port/113 (accessed on 19 December 2019).
- Ports de la Generalitat. DECLARACIÓ AMBIENTAL. 2018. Available online: http://ports.gencat.cat/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Declaracio_ambiental_2018_def.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2020).
- Port of San Diego. Climate Action Plan. 2013. Available online: https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/environment/Port-of-San-Diego-Climate-Action-Plan.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2019).
- Misra, A.; Panchabikesan, K.; Gowrishankar, S.K.; Ayyasamy, E.; Ramalingam, V. GHG emission accounting and mitigation strategies to reduce the carbon footprint in conventional port activities—A case of the Port of Chennai. Carbon Manag. 2017, 8, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puerto de Ferrol. Autoridad Portuaria de Ferrol San Cibrao, Memoria Anual 2016. 2017. Available online: https://www.apfsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/desempeno-ambiental_2016.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2020).
- Tucher, M.; Stirbu, S. Giurgiulesti International Free Port Report on Carbon Footprint 2017. 2018. Available online: http://gifp.md/en/wp-content/files_mf/1529738875CarbonFootprintReport2018.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Tsai, Y.T.; Liang, C.J.; Huang, K.H.; Hung, K.H.; Jheng, C.W.; Liang, J.J. Self-management of greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions in Taichung Port, Taiwan. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 63, 576–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Port of Olympia. Port of Olympia 2017 GHG Emissions Inventory Report. 2018. Available online: https://www.portolympia.com/DocumentCenter/View/3109/2017-Port-of-Olympia-GHG-Emissions-Inventory?bidId= (accessed on 26 April 2019).
- Van Duin, J.H.R.; Geerlings, H. Estimating CO2 footprints of container terminal port-operations. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2011, 6, 459–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chowhan, S.; Hiremath, A.M.; Asolekar, S.R. Carbon Footprinting of Container Terminal Ports in Mumbai. 2012. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269702576_Carbon_Footprinting_of_Container_Terminal_Ports_in_Mumbai (accessed on 12 September 2019).
- Yang, Y.C. Operating strategies of CO2 reduction for a container terminal based on carbon footprint perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 472–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.; Song, Y.; Roh, Y. Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from port vessel operations at the Port of Incheon. Transp. Res. 2013, 25, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winnes, H.; Styhre, L.; Fridell, E. Reducing GHG emissions from ships in port areas. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 17, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williamson, T.; Hulskotte, J.; German, R.; Kirsten, M. Port of London Emissions Inventory 2016, Report to Port of London Authority and Transport for London. 2017. Available online: https://www.pla.co.uk/assets/finalplaportwideinventoryoutputsreportv10.2publication.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2019).
- Olukanni, D.O.; Esu, C.O. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from port vessel operations at the Lagos and Tin Can ports of Nigeria. Cogent Eng. 2018, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Year | Organization | Significance of Initiatives |
---|---|---|
1979 | World Meteorological Organization (WMO) | This was one of the first major international meetings on climate change. |
1988 | United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) | This set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on the current state of knowledge about climate change. |
1992 | United Nations (UN) | The UN developed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. |
1995 | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | This published a set of guidelines for national GHG inventories. The revised versions of these guidelines were issued in 2006 and updated in 2019. |
1997 | United Nations (UN) | The UN developed the Kyoto Protocol, which established an action to limit GHG emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the commitment period from 2008 to 2012. |
1997 | GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) | The GRI helps businesses, governments and other organizations to understand and communicate the impact of business on critical sustainability issues such as climate change. |
1998 | World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) | This developed the GHG protocol in order to establish frameworks to measure and manage GHG emissions from private and public sector operations, value chains and mitigation actions. |
1998 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | The EPA prepared a legal opinion concluding that CO2 emissions were within the scope of the EPA’s authority to regulate. |
2003 | World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) | The WWF established the Gold Standard emission allowance to ensure that the projects reduced carbon emissions under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). |
2006 | International Organization for Standardization (ISO) | The ISO developed ISO 14064, which contains detailed principles and requirements for designing, developing, managing and reporting organization or company level GHG inventories. The revised version of this standard was developed in 2018. |
2007 | Ecological Transition Ministry (MITECO) of the Spanish government | This developed a tool and a guideline to calculate carbon footprint for scope 1 and scope 2. |
2008 | Catalan Office for Climate Change (OCCC) | This developed an excel-based tool to calculate CO2 emissions in three scopes. The latest version of this tool with its guidelines was published in 2019. |
2009 | United Nations (UN) | The UN launched the Partnership for Learning on Climate Change. |
2015 | United Nations (UN) | The Paris Agreement set the mitigation goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 2 °C and ideally to 1.5 °C. |
2017 | World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) | The WWF established a next generation of the Gold Standard to quantify, certify, and maximize impacts on climate security and sustainable development. |
2017 | Carbon Trust (UK based company) | It introduces two types of carbon footprinting that affect businesses: one that measures an organization’s overall activities, and one that looks at the life cycle of a product or service. |
2019 | United Nations (UN) | The main aim of COP 25 in Madrid is increasing countries’ ambitions to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. |
Year | Organization | Initiatives’ Explanation |
---|---|---|
2005 | The International Maritime Organization (IMO) | This established regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships in 1997, and the addition of Annex VI to MARPOL entered into force in 2005. |
2008 | International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH) | This provided a mechanism for assisting the ports in mitigating climate change. It also developed the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI), established to raise awareness in the port and maritime community concerning the need for action regarding GHG emissions. |
2010 | World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) | This developed guidelines for ports to create or improve their GHG emissions inventories. |
2011 | The International Maritime Organization (IMO) | This provided an energy efficiency framework for ships. |
2014 | The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) | This published a guideline for port authorities to create awareness about the green port philosophy. |
2015 | The Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG) | This developed tools to calculate the CO2 footprint for a single or whole approach in the logistic chain. |
2018 | Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 72) | This adopted IMO strategy on reduction of GHG ship emissions. |
2018 | The World Ports Sustainability Program (WPSP) | This committed to demonstrating leadership of ports in CO2 reduction through the subscription of ports to the Paris Agreement. |
2019 | PIANC’s Working Group 188 | This investigated the carbon footprint of activities in navigation channels and port infrastructure, including the management of dredged material. |
2019 | World Ports Climate Action Program (WPCAP) | This facilitates emissions reductions from the ports’ supply chains and their larger geographical area. |
2019 | The Green Ship Technology Conference | This adopted the IMO strategy to reduce GHG emissions from shipping by 50% until 2050. |
2020 | PIANC Working Group 178 | This prepared a technical guidance document to help waterborne transport to adapt to climate change. |
2020 | European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO) | This published a position paper concerning the European Green Deal, in whichCO2 emissions from ships at berth and in ports should be reduced by 50% on average and across all segments of shipping by 2030. |
Name of the Port | Description | Year |
---|---|---|
The Port of Gijón | This was one of the first ports that calculated its carbon footprint (including direct/indirect emissions). | 2002 |
The Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles | This developed an annual air emissions inventory report. The ports took joint action to improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin by adopting the CAAP (Clean Air Action Plan). | 2005 |
The Port of Oslo | This calculated the carbon footprint for all the operations under its control. | 2007 |
CLIMEPORT | This provided a common methodology to assess the initial situation of partner ports concerning GHG emissions. | 2008 |
The Port of Rotterdam | This has been CO2-neutral since 2011 and encourages port-based companies to report their carbon footprint. | 2011 |
The Port of Stockholm | This has reported sustainability issues according to the GRI. | 2012 |
The Port of Gothenburg | This calculates the three scopes of carbon footprint and reports them in its annual sustainability report. | 2012 |
The Port of Barcelona | This joined the voluntary agreements to reduce GHG emissions promoted by the Catalan Climate Change Office. | 2012 |
Ports de la Generalitat | This started to calculate GHG emissions every year using the tool developed by the Catalan Office for Climate Change (OCCC). | 2012 |
The Port of San Diego | This developed the Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP). | 2013 |
The Port of Chennai | This quantified GHG emissions following the WPCI guideline. | 2014 |
The Port Authority of Ferrol-San Cibrao | This calculated scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions by the use of Ecological Transition Ministry (MITECO) tool of the Spanish government. | 2016 |
Giurgiulesti International Free Port | This reported its operational activities on carbon footprint according to the GHG protocol. | 2016 |
Taichung Port (Taiwan) | This established a self-management approach to control the total quantity of GHG from various sources in the port district. | 2016 |
The Port of Olympia (USA) | This conducted voluntary biennial GHG emissions inventories using the Washington State Agencies GHG calculator. | 2017 |
Name of the Port | Description | Year |
---|---|---|
The Netherlands | This calculated the contribution of the processes of container handling and transshipment to the carbon footprint. | 2011 |
Mumbai—India | This analyzed the three scopes of emission in four container terminals including an assessment of its damage to human health. | 2012 |
Taiwan | This calculated the CO2 emissions per container of two different container terminals. | 2017 |
Name of the Country | Description | Year |
---|---|---|
Korea | Estimated the GHG emissions from port vessel operations. | 2013 |
Gothenburg | Implemented measures to reduce GHG ship emissions based on alternative fuel use, ship design and operational measures. | 2015 |
England | Prepared an inventory of air emissions from shipping on the Thames and other navigable waterways in the Port of London. | 2017 |
Nigeria | Estimated the amounts of GHG from port vessel operations. | 2017 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Azarkamand, S.; Wooldridge, C.; Darbra, R.M. Review of Initiatives and Methodologies to Reduce CO2 Emissions and Climate Change Effects in Ports. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113858
Azarkamand S, Wooldridge C, Darbra RM. Review of Initiatives and Methodologies to Reduce CO2 Emissions and Climate Change Effects in Ports. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(11):3858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113858
Chicago/Turabian StyleAzarkamand, Sahar, Chris Wooldridge, and R. M. Darbra. 2020. "Review of Initiatives and Methodologies to Reduce CO2 Emissions and Climate Change Effects in Ports" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 11: 3858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113858