Marine Air Pollution in Israel: Extent, Proposed Mitigation Targets, Benefits and Feasibility

Abstract

Marine air pollution is a major contributor to seaports and coastal air pollution, and Israel has yet to seriously confront this issue. This study aimed to update previous marine air pollution estimations in Israel’s two major ports: Haifa and Ashdod. The objectives were to examine technical and regulatory measures to address the problem, to propose mitigation targets and to estimate their potential benefits. Based on a model of emission-calculations that relies on an updated ship-inventory data as well as real-time ships’ location and movement tools, the combined marine NOx, SOx and PM_2.5 annual emissions in these ports were found to be 18,415, 15,128 and 1453 tons, respectively. These values are considerably higher than previous estimates, are comparable to the constant pollution emitted at ground level from a 1000-MW coal powered city power plant and are 3–20 times higher than the industrial and land transportation sectors in these cities. Relatively high nickel concentration in PM was found in Israel only relatively adjacent to the Haifa and Ashdod ports. Since high nickel concentration in PM is today mainly associated with marine air pollution, this finding supports the hypothesis that marine air pollution worsens the air quality in these cities. SOx and PM_2.5 emissions can be reduced by 78% and 27%, respectively, if Israel enforces the revised International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI regulations in its territorial waters. While the latter step can achieve external benefits of NIS 518.4 million/year (EUR 132 million/year), additional mitigation actions and local regulations are suggested, focusing on NOx emissions but also on other pollutant criteria. Such actions can achieve further benefits of NIS 274.3 million/year (EUR 70 million/year). Achieving the suggested targets is challenging yet attainable, and their potential benefits will probably outweigh their costs.

1. Introduction

1.1. Global Marine Air Pollution

Marine transportation and freight are more efficient compared to land and air. Freight of one ton of cargo by air or by land emits 50–2000% more CO₂, compared to marine freight [1,2]. However, marine fuels are the dirtiest fuels used. Most ships usually use residual oil fuel, also called heavy fuel oil (HFO) [3,4]. HFO is a low-grade fuel that emits high levels of air pollution upon combustion in the engine. Moreover, it is common that other materials, such as hazardous chemicals, waste oil and motor oil, are blended with the HFO. The use of this mixed fuel is even worse [5], and although some ships use marine diesel that is cleaner than HFO, marine diesel fuel is still associated with high levels of air pollution emissions (SOx, NOx, PM, CO, VOCs and heavy metals) [5,6,7].

Thus, even though the 2017 international marine sector accounted for only 3% of the global greenhouse gas emissions [8], it accounted for 13% and 20% of global SOx and NOx emissions, respectively [1,8,9,10] (see Figure 1). While some of this air pollution is emitted at sea and poses a health risk only for the crew (and passengers if there are any), 70% of all ship emissions occur within 400 km of the coast [11,12].

Moreover, a significant portion is emitted within a few dozens of km from the coast or within major rivers, and especially near and in ports. There, it often affects coastal and inland air quality, where hundreds of millions of people reside [13,14,15,16]. About 62,000 deaths, and USD 156 billion in health damages costs are attributed to international shipping PM_2.5 and ozone air pollution annually [17,18]. These values might even be an underestimation, since PM (particulate matter) from marine sources is known to be especially enriched with toxic heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, that are more harmful for health compared to ‘regular’ PM [19,20].

The challenge of dealing with air pollution from ships harboring at coastal waters and ports is a complex one [6,21]. It is estimated that in the absence of sufficient policies, ship emissions might grow by 50–250% until 2050 [1,3,7]. One of the main reasons for this is that marine air pollution is one of the last air pollution sources to be globally regulated by international standards [1,6]. Furthermore, while local jurisdictions can restrict air emissions within 12 nautical miles from their shorelines (territorial waters), they cannot dictate design, structure, staffing and equipment. Only the International Maritime Organization (IMO) can approve air pollutant emissions’ restrictions beyond that region (within exclusive economic zone and international waters) [6,21,22]. This makes any local (state) jurisdiction attempt to establish emissions’ restrictions on ships (within the 12 nautical miles), to be highly dependent on the IMO’s related regulations as well as specific actions made by other local jurisdictions in the region (such as group of states within certain sea-zones).

An Emission Control Area (ECA) is usually an area of sea or ocean waters, within 370 km (200 nautical miles) of the coast, in which stricter controls are established to minimize airborne emissions from ships. An ECA can be approved only by the IMO. In an SOx ECA (SECA), SOx emissions are restricted; in a NOx ECA (NECA), NOx emissions are restricted. Present ECAs exist along North America, Northern Europe, and the United States and France Caribbean coasts [23]. Both SECAs and NECAs, are based on implementing the full International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which includes IMO’s Tier III (Appendix B, Appendix G and Figure A1) MARPOL Annex VI regulation 13 [5,7,23,24,25].

Following the establishment of the North Sea SECA in 2007 (reducing sulfur fuel content from 4.5% to 1.5%), SOx emissions from ships dropped by 45% [26]. Lowering the SOx limit even more from 1% to 0.1% was followed by a further three-fold reduction in the relative ships SOx contribution to air pollution [27].

Additionally, implementation and enforcement of the recent MARPOL Annex VI amendment for use of fuel with up to 0.5% of sulfur [28], can significantly reduce Sox emissions globally. Regardless of these global air pollution emissions’ restrictions, for 20 years now, regional, national and local regulations in the developed world [24,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40] and recently also in China [41,42,43,44,45], are successfully reducing marine air pollution.

Air pollution mitigation techniques vary in their technical complexity and cost (see Section 3.2.1 and Appendix G). They include measures such as speed-control, conversion to alternative fuels, scrubbers installation, connection to electric shore power (ESP) and engine modification or replacement [23]. Particularly in the case of NOx emission reduction techniques, some of these techniques require retrofitting large fleets of relatively older ships. Since the lifespan of a ship can reach to more than 25 years, such older ships constitute a significant portion of most international fleets [46,47,48].

1.2. Marine Air Pollution in Israel

To the best of our knowledge, no previous peer-reviewed papers have been published aiming to calculate air pollution emissions from ships in Israel, while examining feasible mitigation scenarios and their potential benefits. One previous non-peer-reviewed report that used 2007 data, calculated that ships are responsible for 0.003–5.6% of air pollutants in Israel, expressed mainly in emissions of criteria air pollutants such as SOx, NOx and PM_2.5 [49]. These emissions which were 3–9 times higher than their relative CO₂ share, were not spread evenly across the country, but rather mostly emitted next to the two main ports in Israel: the Haifa and Ashdod ports. Each of these ports is located adjacent to a highly populated area; approximately 550,000 and 250,000 inhabitants live within 10 km of these ports, respectively [50,51,52]. The elevated levels of air pollution around the Haifa-bay area are considered a well-known public issue, and some studies have also correlated the latter with increased risk of adverse health effects in specific areas around the bay [53,54,55].

Interestingly, the total calculated NOx and SOx emissions for Israeli marine vessels in 2007 was similar (~9000 ton/year) and three times lower respectively, compared to that of oil refinery operations in Israel [49]. However, while local regulations have since forced industrial air emissions to decrease, the lack of local regulations in the marine sector coupled with the rise in marine activity probably led to a shift in the balance of air pollution between the two industries. For example, SO₂ emissions from Oil Refineries Ltd. (ORL or BAZAN), famously known for being a high source for air pollution in Israel, and particularly in the Haifa Bay [56], dropped by 80% between 2009 and 2014 [57,58]. In principle, any country can establish local marine emission restrictions within its own territorial waters. For example. China is restricting emissions in its own Domestic ECA (DECA) [41,42,43,44,45]. However, for a ‘small marine actor’ such as Israel, it appears to be a challenging task from both regulatory and economic perspectives. Moreover, to date, Israel has not yet established the legal framework that can allow it to enforce in its territorial waters the 2020 MARPOL Annex VI regulation. This regulation is important as it restricts the use of marine fuel with a sulfur content of up to 0.5%, or alternatively requires the use of different sulfur emissions reduction technique with similar effects.

A future possible Mediterranean SECA, in which ships are restricted to use fuel with sulfur content of up to 0.1%, could further reduce SOx emissions. Yet, declaration of SECA requires international cooperation and agreements [6,22,59,60]. Therefore, until such complex, multinational agreements are achieved, and since the Haifa and Ashdod ports are located close to large populations in the country, special state efforts should be considered to deal with the marine sector. Such efforts, for example, can come in the form of a local state plan for reducing the air pollution and/or in the form of establishment of DECAs.

1.3. Are Marine Emissios in Isreal Higher Than Previously Esimated, and What Can Be Done to Combat the Problem?

The calculation of the 2007 marine emissions mentioned previously, considered emissions only from hoteling and from an hour of maneuvering per vessel. No study in Israel considered emissions from ships in other navigation phases that can also affect the coastal air quality: ships in the stand-by phase, that wait for an average of 2 days within 3 km of the port; and ships cruising between 3–20 km of the ports. These additional emissions are relevant since marine emissions within 20 km (and even further away) from the shore can contribute to shoreline air pollution and to adverse health effects [11,17,41,61].

Moreover, since 2007, marine activity increased by 40–80% in these ports [62,63,64], and new ports are being commissioned in both Haifa and Ashdod (2021–2022) These additional port activities within Haifa and Ashdod are expected to increase marine emissions even further once the new ports are fully operational [65,66]. Therefore, Israeli marine traffic poses an elevated risk today and in the future for the surrounding population, compared to 2007.

Furthermore, no study in Israel has yet presented a mitigation framework to combat this problem and the potential benefits that can be achieved by such a step, while considering regulation-aspects, mitigation technologies, future marine trends, and the expected expansions of marine activities at both Haifa and Ashdod areas due to the new ports that will soon be fully operational.

In this paper it is suggested that the extent of air pollution attributed to ships at the Haifa and Ashdod ports is considerably larger than previously estimated, and while reducing it is highly challenging, it is possible, and it could achieve major external benefits. Four key-items to assist policymakers in determining the priority and means to address the problem are presented: (1) An updated calculation of the level of air pollution emitted from the marine sector in the Haifa and Ashdod ports; (2) Proposed targets for reducing the current air pollution levels from this sector (for the year 2030), based on a combination of feasible solutions that can be incorporated in a mitigation plan; (3) Estimation of potential environmental–health–economic benefits that can be achieved by such mitigation plan; and (4) Highlight policy and regulatory aspects to consider and prioritize in the plan.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Calculation of 2018 Marine Emissions in the Haifa and Ashdod Ports

2.1.1. Calculation of NOx, SOx, PM_2.5, CO and VOCs Emissions

A new yearly ship emissions inventory in the Haifa and Ashdod ports was created. It was based on calculation of instantaneous emissions towards the coast, from ships in three marine navigation phases: (1) cruising–sailing within 1–10 km from the port, upon arriving to the stand-by position, and after leaving the port; (2) stand-by–waiting in line within 0.5–5 km from the port before entering the port, and maneuvering–sailing between standby and hoteling and vice versa; and (3) hoteling–docking at the port (see Figure 2).

To characterize the typical daily number of ships entering each port, as a function of the factors affecting ship emissions (described below), a number of data sources were used: previous inventories prior to 2016; further EIA documents from 2016 submitted to Israeli regulatory bodies in request for approval of plans for ports expansions [49,65,66,69]; interviews and collection of information from related Israeli officials; sampling and tracking of daily/weekly/monthly ships` movements and locations at each port during the year 2018. The last data source was from “Marine Traffic.Com”, Global Ship Tracking Intelligence. It has daily tracking information available (based on real-time GPS locations) and a live map that allows for viewing the current placement of each ship, its speed and distance from each port [67].

Related emission factors were attributed to the different types of navigation phases. The following main variables were analyzed and characterized for using related emission factors: number of ships by type, engine size, manufacture year, fuel type and engine duty; average time spent for cruising, maneuvering and stand-by, and hoteling; other physical parameters such as: stacks heights, gas temperature and velocity, emissions rate and more (see Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C).

Relevant specific emission factors for NOx, SOx, PM_2.5, CO and VOCs were obtained from the Entec Ship Emissions Inventory [70] and the USA EPA AP-42 Emission Factors [71,72]. All emission factors were normalized as detailed in Appendix A and Appendix B. Eventually, the total emissions of each pollutant (from each type of vessel) were divided into the three operational regimes, which are a function of the ship’s navigation phase: cruising, maneuvering and stand-by and hoteling. The emission rates and total volumes are strongly dependent on these navigation phases. For a single vessel, the emissions can be expressed as:

$$E_{vessel}=E_{cruising}+E_{manoeuvring}+E_{hoteling}$$

(1)

where E_vessel is all the emissions per vessel, E_cruising is emissions from cruising etc. Fuel types are BFO (Bunker Fuel Oil), MDO (Marine Diesel Oil) and MGO (Marine Gas Oil). When fuel consumption for each navigation phase is known, the emissions of pollutant i, can be calculated by the following equation:

$$E_{vessel,i,e,f}={\displaystyle \sum }_p\left(F{C}_{e,f,p}\times E{F}_{i,e,f,p}\right)$$

(2)

where: E_vessel is overall emission from a vessel (ton); FC is fuel consumption (ton); EF_i is the emission factor for pollutant i in kg pollutant per ton fuel (kg/ton); i is the pollutant (NOx/CO/VOC/PM_2.5/SOx); f is the fuel type (BFO/MDO/MGO); e is the engine type (slow-/medium-/high- speed diesel or gas turbine); p is the navigation phase (cruising, maneuvering, hoteling). An alternative calculation method was applied in cases where fuel consumption per navigation phase were not known. In such cases, the emissions were calculated based on the engine duty installed (power and operation time) at the different phases. In the case of emissions from installed auxiliary engines, a load factor and total time in hours for each phase using the following equation was assumed:

$$E_{vessel,i,e,f}={\displaystyle \sum }_p\left[T\times P\times {\displaystyle \sum }_{ec}\left(P_{ec}\times L{F}_{ec}\times E{F}_{i, ec,e,f,p}\right)\right]$$

(3)

where E_vessel is the overall emission from a vessel (grams, g); EF_i is the emission factor for pollutant i (g/kWh) (see Appendix B); LF is the engine load factor (%); P is the engine nominal power (kW); T is the time under the specific condition (hour); ec is the engine category (main/auxiliary); i is the pollutant (NOx/CO/VOC/PM_2.5/SOx); f is the fuel type (BFO/MDO/MGO); e is the engine type (slow-/medium-/high- speed diesel or gas turbine); p is the phase of the navigation (cruise, maneuvering, hoteling); see Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D.

Explanations, data sources and calculations of industrial zones and land transportation emissions in Haifa and Ashdod, and of a typical 1000 MW coal power plant, can be found in Appendix E.

2.1.2. Calculation of Average Nickel Concentration in Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) Monitored by Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Average nickel concentration in TSP (µg/m³ of air) in Israeli air quality monitoring stations for 2018 was calculated using data from the 17 monitoring stations that measured nickel during 2018 [73,74]. Each station measured nickel concentrations between 1–26 times annually (the monitoring stations do not necessarily measure air quality on a regular basis in every place). Standard deviation was also measured for the nickel concentrations.

2.1.3. Calculation of Different Marine Activities Share in NOx Emissions

The share of different marine activities in NOx emissions was calculated based on the inventory of ships visiting the Haifa and Ashdod ports during 2018, marine vessels and engines emission factors, and the distribution of the time the ships spent in each of the 3 navigation phases; see Section 2.1.1, and the Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C.

2.1.4. Calculation of Visiting Ships Manufacturing Year-Range Distribution, for the Haifa and Ashdod Ports

The distribution of the manufacturing year-range of the ships visiting the ports was calculated. The fleet for the year 2018 was calculated based on [49], adjusted to the ports in Israel (based on additional data from [63,64,69]). Prediction for 2030 was calculated for this study as detailed in Appendix D.

2.2. Marine Emission Mitigation

2.2.1. Marine Emission Feasibility Assessment of Mitigation Techniques

The feasibility of marine emission mitigation techniques was assessed qualitatively by the following criteria: cost, installation time, technique maturity, technique prevalence in ships and ports around the world and special considerations regarding implementation in Israel.

2.2.2. Calculation of Future Emission Scenarios for 2030

First, a ‘business as usual’ (BAU) emission scenario was created for the year 2030, assuming no specific proactive local (state) regulations and mitigation actions are applied, except for the enforcement of MARPOL VI (regarding use of fuel with sulfur of up to 0.5% or other measures with a similar SOx and PM reduction effect). This scenario also considered the upcoming expansions of both Haifa and Ashdod ports, in accordance with current national plans for building and operation of Hamifratz and Hadarom ports next to Haifa and Ashdod ports respectively [65,66]. The expected replacement rate of older ships with newer ships (in international fleets) was also considered.

The BAU scenario was then compared to a mitigation scenario, which was based primarily on several suggested state proactive steps for mitigating the emissions (compared to BAU), referred to as the MPS (‘Mitigation Plan Scenario’). The MPS was constructed by:

(a)

Reviewing various mitigation techniques that can be applied on ships to reduce NOx, SOx, PM_2.5, CO and VOCs emissions. This was carried out while considering that some new ships manufactured since 2016 have to meet more strict emission standards [23,75], and yet as suggested in this paper, their portion in fleets is expected to be limited even by year 2030. So, the MPS focused on techniques that can be used on existing ships (up to Tier II). Additionally, other non-technological “soft” management methods were considered. For example: port congestion management, control on ship speeds, imposing green levies related to specific emissions and other types of management and operational aspects that can affect air pollution performance around ports areas.

(b)

Determining the feasibility of each technique, based on if the technique has been well proven as a technically feasible method (used in ships) while considering its emission reduction effectiveness and cost-efficiency.

(c)

Calculating emission scenario after implementation of a mitigation plan, based on creating different sub-emission reduction scenarios which rely on varying portions of incorporation of the different available mitigation techniques. The MPS assumes that one holistic policy framework is implemented to require and/or incentivize the techniques incorporation, while considering that there are different ways (combinations of techniques) that can lead to a general mitigation outcome (‘mitigation scenario’). The outcome of the mitigation scenario assumed the following key elements: (1) All ships at each port would comply with MARPOL VI concerning use of fuel with sulfur content of up to 0.5%; (2) A total of 70% of the current most polluting ships at each port would install NOx reduction technologies, would use LNG (liquefied natural gas) as alternative fuel, or would convert hoteling engines to electric auxiliary engines powered by ESP (electric shore power); (3) The other 30% of these ships would allow stand-by for porting at distance of at least 5 km from each port/ shore; see Appendix D.

2.3. Calculation of Emissions’ Environmental-Health Damage Cost and the Potential Benefits of MPS

The 2018 combined Haifa and Ashdod ports emissions environmental-health damage cost (externalities) was calculated. Using Haifa and Ashdod ports combined NOx, PM_2.5 and SOx emissions calculation for 2018 (Figure A2 in Appendix D), BAU 2030 and MPS 2030 scenarios and the externalities costs for marine air pollutants as presented in the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection Green Book [76], the emissions environmental-health damage cost were calculated per air pollutant, per scenario (see Appendix E). The differences between BAU 2030 and the present costs, and between BAU 2030 and the MPS 2030 costs, were calculated, based on the following formula:

$$MPB={\displaystyle \sum }_p\left[\left(E{B}_i\times C_i\right)-\left(E{A}_i\times C_i\right)\right]$$

(4)

where MBP is the Mitigation Plan Benefits; EB_i is Emissions (in ton) of pollutant i in BAU scenario (assuming no mitigation is applied); C_i is Damage costs (externalities) in ILS₂₀₂₀ (NIS: Israeli Shekels) per ton of emissions of pollutant, based on recent prices accepted in Israel for the year 2020, published by the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection [76]; EAi is Emissions (in ton) of pollutant, assuming mitigation plan is applied. The criteria pollutants included in the MPB were SO₂ as SOx, NOx and PM_2.5. Average EUR₂₀₂₀ (Euro) to ILS₂₀₂₀ exchange rate for 2020 was 3.92 ILS [77].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Marine Vessels Air Pollution Emissions in and Adjacent to the Haifa and Ashdod Ports for 2018

3.1.1. Total NOx, SOx, PM_2.5, C, and VOCs Emissions from Marine Activity

Haifa and Ashdod ports marine vessels air pollutants emissions were calculated for 2018 by preparing updated ships’ emissions inventory and using relevant emissions factors (see Section 2.1.1, and Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C).

The current calculated annual air pollution emissions from both Haifa and Ashdod ports are provided in Figure 3. The emitted pollutant criteria with relatively high values are NOx, SOx_, and PM_2.5, with all other pollutants examined (VOCs, and CO) reaching relatively lower values. From Haifa port, the emissions are 11,167 ton/year NOx, 8877 ton/year SOx, 889 ton/year PM_2.5, 444 ton/year VOCs and 1778 ton/year CO. From Ashdod port, the emissions are 7248 ton/year NOx, 6251 ton/year SOx, 564 ton/year PM_2.5, 281 ton/year VOCs and 1127 ton/year CO.

This difference in marine activities between Haifa and Ashdod reflects the fact that the total emissions of all pollutants examined in Haifa port are higher than in Ashdod. Absolute emission values are presented in Figure 3A, and values normalized to the emissions of the Haifa port are presented in Figure 3B (to present the ratio between the different emission sources).

To provide perspective, the Haifa and Ashdod ports emissions were compared to the emissions from the Haifa Bay and North Ashdod industrial zones, from the Haifa metropolitan and the Ashdod area land transportation, and from a typical 1000 MW coal power plant. The Haifa and Ashdod ports NOx emissions were comparable to those of a 1000 MW coal plant, and 3–12 times higher than that of the industrial zones, and land transportation. VOCs emissions from the ports were 37–60% lower than that of the Haifa Bay industrial zone, similar or 40% lower than the those of the Haifa metropolitan land transportation and the North Ashdod industrial zone and similar to or twice as high as that of the Ashdod area land transportation.

SOx emissions in the ports were about half of the typical 1000 MW coal plant, and 10 times higher than those of the industrial zone. PM_2.5 emissions from the ports were 4–20 times higher than those of the sectors. CO emissions from the ports were 55–70% lower than that of the Haifa metropolitan land transportation, similar to or 40% lower compared to that of the Ashdod area land transportation, and 1.4–2.2 times higher than that of a typical 1000 MW coal power plant.

Such a high air pollution burden attributed to the ships at the ports is especially concerning when considering that both Haifa and Ashdod are the third and sixth highest populated cities in the country, respectively, and within 10 km of each port, approximately 550,000 and 250,000 inhabitants live, respectively [50,51,52]. Both ports are located next to large industrial zones with many heavy industries, such as oil refineries and various chemical factories. And yet, the ships’ NOx, PM_2.5 and SOx emissions overwhelmingly surpass the emissions from all other sources in and next to the cities.

While all active coal power plants emit their emissions through a 100–300 m chimney that reduces the air pollutants concentrations once they flow back to ground level, marine vessels emit their air pollutants at ground level or up to a few dozens of meters of the ground. Therefore, marine vessels’ air pollution, could be more harmful to the nearby population, compared to a coal power plant air pollution with similar emissions [78,79].

The ports’ air emission values were 2–3 times higher than the previous estimation [49]. It is suggested that the present calculations are higher due to two main reasons: first, the present data are more updated as they represents port activities during 2018, as opposed to the previous calculated data for the year 2007. Between 2007–2018, the shipment activity at both Haifa and Ashdod ports increased by 40–80%, depending on the port and on the type of port activity examined [62,63,64,80]. This activity can be measured by the number of container cargos, liquid, bulk or other types of cargos handled in the port per year.

Second, the previous estimation has calculated yearly emissions primarily based on the total annual number and type of ships entering the ports, and took into account only emissions from hoteling and from an hour of maneuvering. However, the present study found that on an average operational moment, approximately 40 ships are hoteling at the Haifa port, while an additional 20 ships are waiting in line at the stand-by area, about 2 km from the port. Similarly, in the Ashdod port at any typical moment, there are approximately 30 ships hoteling and 10 ships waiting in line (see Figure 1 and Appendix C).

For comparison, the Piraeus port in Greece (the most active passenger port in Europe) had almost 18,000 ship calls in 2018, while Haifa and Ashdod had 3500 and 2300, respectively. Most of the ship calls in the Piraeus port (13,000) are of relatively small passenger ships, while almost all of those in Haifa and Ashdod are of cargo ships. The Piraeus port handled about 1,000,000 TEUs (20-foot equivalent unit) of cargo, while Haifa and Ashdod handled about 1,500,000 TEUs each [63,81,82,83].

Between 2009–2018, while ship calls in the Piraeus port rose from 10,500 to 18,000, SOx emissions dropped from 722 to 191 ton/year, and NOx emissions rose from 1790 to 4366 ton/year. The relatively low values and decline in SOx emissions compared to Haifa and Ashdod reflect the low sulfur content allowed in marine fuel in EU ports and in passenger ships in the EU (0.1% today). The increase in NOx emissions reflects an increase in marine activity and the fact that there were no effective NOx mitigation regulations in place. Still, the Piraeus port NOx emissions are only 60% and 40% of those of Ashdod and Haifa ports, respectively [63,81,82,83].

Furthermore, for the Piraeus port, only emissions from the hoteling and from one hour of the maneuvering navigation phases were, considered, while in the present study cruising emissions were also considered (comprising 17% of the emissions; see Section 3.1.3). Lastly, the stand-by time in the Ashdod and Haifa ports is relatively long (about 2 days prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) and was considered in the present study but was not considered in the Piraeus port studies [63,81,82,83].

3.1.2. Relatively High Nickel Concentration in TSP (Total Suspended Particulate) was Measured Only Relatively Close to the Haifa and Ashdod Ports

While other polluting sectors, such as the industrial and land transportation sectors, are monitored in Israel, the marine sector air emissions are currently not directly monitored. There are no air quality monitoring stations in, near or around the Haifa and Ashdod ports. The closest monitoring stations are a few km away. Therefore, it is difficult to measure the actual effect of marine air pollutants that are also emitted by other sectors (SOx, NOx, PM, etc.), in these cities.

Nevertheless, it is known that marine vessels are a major source for air pollution with toxic heavy metals, such as nickel, vanadium, mercury, arsenic, led and cadmium [17,18,19,20,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92]. Specifically, nickel is mainly emitted from coal, petcock and heavy fuel oil combustion. Since coal and petcock use is dwindling in Israel, and since facilities that use coal and petcock employ dust and PM emissions’ reduction techniques that significantly reduce heavy metals air emissions, heavy fuel oil combustion by marine vessels is the major contributor for nickel air pollution in Israel [88,89,90].

According to the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection, 89% (about 7000 tons/year) of all nickel emissions in Israel are from marine vessels (for 2018). Other nickel emission sources are electricity production and industry [88]. To confirm that marine air emissions reach the local population living around the ports, nickel concentration in TSP (total suspended particulate) was studied in air quality monitoring stations’ data.

During 2018–2019, there were 17 monitoring stations in Israel that measured nickel concentration as a fraction of TSP. In these two years, the Israeli daily nickel target value (0.025 µg/m³) was exceeded by 6 times, all of which were in Ashdod and Haifa [74]. During 2018, among these 17 monitoring stations, only 4 stations (Check Post, Kishon, Ashdod N.Ind.Z.No.1, Kiryat Haim) measured an average daily nickel concentration as a fraction of TSP higher than 0.005 µg/m³ (red bars, Figure 4). These four stations are within 3.5 km of the Ashdod and Haifa ports, and are downwind to prevailing winds from the ports and ships stand-by areas (wind data are from the Ashdod and Igud-Haifa meteorological stations in [91]). Three of the four monitoring stations had average values of 0.011 µg/m³, that are 3.3 times higher than the average of the 13 stations with low nickel concentration as a fraction of TSP [73].

Besides the ports, Haifa and Ashdod have no coal use within at least 20 km from the cities, but they both have oil refinery facilities that produce petcock that can be the source for the nickel air pollution. As there were no monitoring stations in or near the ports during 2018–2019, a more certain conclusion for the nickel air pollution source in Haifa and Ashdod could be reached if future monitoring stations will be placed in and around the ports. However, it is worth noting that low nickel concentrations as a fraction of TSP were found next to Israel’s largest petcock user, Nesher Ramla cement factory (Ramla and Ahisamech monitoring stations, Figure 4), and next to Haifa’s petroleum refinery (Kiryat Ata monitoring station, Figure 4). So, it is less likely that these facilities contribute much to high nickel air pollution, as was found closer to the Haifa and Ashdod ports.

Moreover, the current Israeli daily nickel target value (0.025 µg/m³), is higher than the value recommended by the WHO, which is 0.020 µg/m³, and that is the value in other developed countries [92]. Interestingly, the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection is promoting (2022) an update of the air pollutant target values, based on the WHO recommendations, and is proposing to lower the daily nickel target value to 0.020 µg/m³ [93,94]. While during 2018, the Israeli daily nickel target value (0.025 µg/m³) was exceeded by 3 times, the proposed 0.020 µg/m³ value, was exceeded by 7 times. In the Kiryat Haim monitoring station, relatively close to the Haifa port and relatively far from the Haifa Bay petroleum refinery (the other possible nickel air emission source in the area), over 15% of the measurement exceeded the 0.020 µg/m³ value.

This data support the hypothesis that marine air pollution from the Haifa and Ashdod ports affects the onshore air quality around the ports. It is suggested that new monitoring stations should be installed in, near and around the Ashdod and Haifa ports, to better monitor their effect on the urban air pollution.

3.1.3. Share of Different Marine Activities in NOx Emissions

To calculate the total emissions from marine activities in the Haifa and Ashdod ports, and also to allow calculation of mitigation scenarios, the share of different marine activities in NOx emissions was calculated (see Section 2.1.1, and the Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C).

The ports’ NOx emissions being the highest of all emissions, represents a special challenge compared to SOx and PM_2.5. This is since, while SOx and PM_2.5 can be significantly reduced by using fuel with lower sulfur content (as required by MARPOL VI and as expected to be enforced in Israel), NOx emissions can only be reduced on existing (older) ships by retrofitting them with costly technologies. Of the total emissions of NOx, 54% are emitted during the ships hoteling, while 29% and 17% are attributed to the maneuvering and stand-by and cruising activities, respectively (see Figure 5).

During hoteling, the ships are using their auxiliary engines to provide energy to their onboard systems that must also remain active during hoteling. These engines are much smaller than the engines used for cruising, yet the hoteling stage expands on extended time (of approximately 2–3 days) compared to other activities, and they use the same fuel as the main engines. This means that connecting the ships to electric shore power can eliminate more than 50% of all direct NOx emissions from ships (see Figure 5) as well as a similar portion of all the other direct air pollutants (see Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D).

3.1.4. Distribution of Visiting Ships Manufacturing Year, for the Haifa and Ashdod Ports

For calculation of both 2018 and 2030 marine vessels’ air pollution in the Haifa and Ashdod ports, ports visiting ships manufacturing year distribution was calculated. The portion of relative older ships versus newer ships entering the ports in Israel is highly dependent on their typical portion in international fleets. In principle, older ships pollute more than newer ships. Ships that were built before 2000 are referred to as having a Tier 0 standards’; ships constructed between 2000–2011 must comply with Tier I standards; ships constructed after 2011 must comply with Tier II standards; and ships built from 2016 and on and are operating within a NECA, must comply with Tier III standards. Tier II standards are 15–20% better than Tier I, and Tier III standards are 5 times better than Tier I [75,95].

Based on the typical international distribution of exiting ships by year of manufacture [47] and the typical slow replacement of ships in international fleets [46,47,48], it is estimated that by year 2030, only 16% of the current portion of the oldest ships will be replaced with ships that comply with the latest EPA NOx standards (see Figure 6).

By year 2030, all ship activities are expected to increase at both Haifa and Ashdod cities. This is because by 2022, the new Hadarom port (next to Ashdod port) and Hamifrats port in Haifa bay are planned to become operational, while the Israeli population, economic activity and consumption are expected to grow [96,97]. Therefore, it appears impossible for NOx emissions to significantly decrease at Israel’s ports, unless NOx emissions are restricted.

3.2. Marine Emission Mitigation in Israel

3.2.1. Emission Mitigation Techniques and Their Feasibility in Israel

There is an array of mature marine air pollution mitigation techniques. To calculate the possible marine emissions mitigation scenarios in Israel, the feasibility of mitigation techniques was assessed as described in Section 2.2.1. An extensive list of the mitigation techniques and their characteristics can be found in Appendix G.

Some mitigation techniques can be considered as ‘softer` management techniques, as they are not associated with retrofitting ships with costly mitigation-technologies. For example, increasing the stand-by distance of ships away from the port and controlling ship’s speed. These techniques can be applied immediately with an instant effect, at no cost, and thus with a very high cost-efficiency. However, ‘softer’ measures are usually more limited in their effectiveness, while the more sufficient measures are associated with incorporation of costly after treatment systems (such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and scrubbers) or investing in specific engine conversions (see Appendix G).

Furthermore, some techniques can be more effective in reducing emissions on several ships’ navigation phases. For example, stand-by and maneuvering, cruising and hoteling phases as in the case of the after-treatment techniques or the use of cleaner alternative fuels. Other techniques are effective against only one navigation phase as in the case of electric shore power (ESP), which eliminates all direct emissions from hoteling, but does not mitigate emissions from stand-by and maneuvering and cruising.

In terms of costs, some techniques are more feasible for ships which are originally designed to apply them, as in the cases of connecting to ESP or using liquid natural gas (LNG) as an alternative fuel. In such cases, applying the techniques may even be economically beneficial for those ships (due to savings in operational costs), provided that related infrastructure exists in the port, such as: ESP infrastructure and LNG fueling station.

Table 1. Marine air pollution mitigation techniques and their feasibility in Israel.

Technique Name	Compared to Tier I, Emission Mitigation by:			Cost	Maturity	Installation Time	Prevalence	Cost-Efficiency	Feasibility in Israel
	SOx	PM	NOx
Engine retrofitting from Tier I to Tier III/IV			Tier III 70% Tier IV 90%	++	+++++	++	+	+	+
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)			70–98%	+++	+++++	+++	++++	++	++++
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)			70%	++++	+++++	++++	+++	+++	++++
Exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS) (“scrubbers”)	90–99%	0–20%		+++	+++++	+++	++++	++	++++
Low or ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD)	70–90%	25–60%		++++	+++++	+++	++++	+++	++++
Electric shore power (ESP)	100% during hoteling 50–70% over the 3 phases of navigation			++	+++++	++	+++	++	+++
Liquid natural gas (LNG)/dual fuel	99%	94%	90%	+	+++++	+	+	+	+
Distancing stand-by location	70–90% of emissions during stand-by phase. 15%–25% over all phases of navigation			+++++	+++++	+++++	+	+++++	+++++

Legend: + bad … +++++ very good. Based on the present study, Appendix G and [29,33,38,98,99,100,101,102,103,104].

summarizes the main different techniques that can potentially be applied. The performance, suitability and compatibility of each technique depend on various specific technical features of each ship, as well as technical-operational and strategic-management considerations by fleet owners. For certain ships, a combination of techniques might be required to comply with stricter local emission regulations.

For example, relatively older ships might need to apply an EGR or SCR system for reducing NOx and to use low-sulfur diesel to reduce SOx, while for others, only one measure can potentially be sufficient. Relatively newer ships can connect to ESP or can run on LNG, and therefore can potentially comply with most strict regulations (even beyond NECA and SECA) without any need to apply further steps.

3.2.2. Emission Mitigation Scenario for 2030

The Mitigation Plan Scenario (MPS) for the Haifa and Ashdod ports was developed and was compared to present emissions (2018) and the business as usual (BAU) scenario for 2030. This was carried out to assess the possibility of future air pollution mitigation in these ports, and to suggest a plausible path for which to achieve it. The emission mitigation scenario was developed using available technologies and regulatory tools (see Section 2.2.2 and Section 3.2.1 and Appendix D).

Regulatory bodies (such as the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection) normally avoid dictating to the industry regarding a specific technological solution that should be chosen for pollution reduction if it meets certain criteria such as emission standards and/or mitigation targets. In this case, it is suggested that such policy is especially important. Since ship owners operate internationally, they have to consider various technical, operational and economic aspects regarding the most feasible technique for specific ship, company and port.

Accordingly, Figure 7 represents a proposed overall emission reduction scenario for 2030 compared to BAU scenario. The BAU scenario assumes that no local NOx and SOx related mitigation plan is applied, besides enforcement of MARPOL VI. The MPS scenario considers several sub-alternative reduction scenarios, which assumed different variations in incorporation of any of the existing techniques (see Section 3.2.1, Appendix D). All these variations enable achieving similar mitigation targets, based on the four key elements described in Section 1.3 for the MPS.

If the present estimated emission levels of each type of pollutant (see absolute numbers in Appendix D) equals 1 as a relative baseline, it is predicted that by 2030 in a BAU scenario (no state local proactive mitigation plan is applied), VOCs and CO emissions will increase by 17%. This is due to an increase in ship transport in the ports, as each port is expanded in accordance with current national plans [65,66,69]. Moreover, NOx emission levels would only be reduced by 4% due to this increase in ship transport, coupled with a slow replacement of older ships with newer ships, that have a higher NOx emissions standards Tier.

However, since the BAU scenario assumes that Israel would enforce MARPOL VI in its ports, it is predicted that SOx emissions would drop by 78% even without any further local regulations. Furthermore, since SOx emissions are associated with PM_2.5 emissions, it is estimated that the significant drop of SOx emissions in BAU, would also result in a 27% drop in PM_2.5 emissions. A feasible NOx and SOx proactive local mitigation plan (MPS 2030, blue columns in Figure 7) can achieve a significant decrease in all emissions compared to BAU. NOx emissions can be reduced by 71% instead of 4% as in BAU, PM_2.5 by 57% instead of 27%, VOCs and CO by 36% and 31%, respectively (instead of a 17% increase), and finally SOx can be cut in half compared to BAU 2030 (89% decrease compared to 2018).

3.3. Haifa and Ashdod Ports Air Polution Damage Cost and Mitigation Benefits

To monetize the environmental-health damages of the marine air pollution from each port, the 2018 air pollution emissions data and the air pollutants externalities were used (see Section 2.3, Appendix F and Figure A2).

For 2018, the combined estimated externalities of NOx, SOx and PM_2.5 marine air pollution in Haifa and Ashdod is ILS 991 million (NIS 991 million or EUR 253 million) or 0.08% of Israel’s GDP [105] (see Figure 8, and

Table A29. External costs of emissions from the ship sector at Haifa and Ashdod ports by emission scenario.

Air Pollutant	Present Costs (ILS/Year)	BAU Costs 2030 (ILS/Year)	MPS Costs 2030 (ILS/Year)	BAU–Present Cost Difference (ILS/Year)	BAU–MPS Cost Difference (ILS/Year)
NOx	237,978,819	228,314,928	67,435,308	−9,663,891	−160,879,620
PM2.5	153,952,512	112,018,816	67,447,579	−41,933,696	−44,571,238
SOx	599,492,589	132,658,465	63,815,301	−466,834,124	−68,843,165
Total	991,423,921	472,992,209	198,698,187	−518,431,711	−274,294,022

in Appendix F). This cost is similar to the 2015 annual cost attributed to air pollution from industrial, land transportation and other land sources in the Haifa Bay, calculated to be ILS 561–1352 million/year (EUR 143–345 million) [58].

When considering the environmental-health damage costs from each type of emission, it appears that strong and effective local enforcement of MARPOL VI is the first and most important step. This is since this step alone can reduce SOx and PM_2.5 by 78% and 27%, respectively (BAU 2030 versus 2018 in Figure 8, and in Table A29 in Appendix F), and hence generate external benefits of approximately ILS 518 million (EUR 132 million) per year.

The second most important step as it appears from the model, is establishment and implementation of a NOx and SOx related local mitigation plan. Such a plan in accordance with the emission reduction targets presented in Figure 7 can generate additional external benefits of approximately ILS 274 million (EUR 70 million) per year. Of these costs, approximately ILS 160 million (EUR 41 million) would result from NOx reduction and approximately ILS 68 and 44 million (EUR 17 and 11 million) from further reduction in SOx and PM_2.5, respectively, compared to BAU 2030. In total, realization of the MPS 2030 scenario is expected to generate external benefits of ILS 793 million (EUR 202 million) per year, or 0.06% of Israel’s 2018 GDP [105], compared to the present ports’ air pollution external cost.

It is important to note that the aim of the damage cost estimates mentioned is to provide first indications regarding the potential benefits that can be achieved by the different mitigation steps (whether local enforcement of MARPOL VI in BAU or MPS). However, due to lack of current monitoring and lab-analysis data, these estimates do not yet account for potential reduction in overall PM (including PM₁₀), NMVOC, and particularly the specific contaminants that compose these criteria pollutants.

For example, the specific heavy metals attached to PM or the specific organic compounds that compose the NMVOC. The more there is an additional pollution of PM₁₀ (on top of the PM_2.5 calculated in this paper) and/or the share of PM with attached heavy metals (by type) is higher and/or the share of more toxic organic compounds is higher (as part of the NMVOC criteria), the higher are the damage costs from the ships’ emissions.

More specifically, it is known that marine vessels are a major source for air pollution with toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic heavy metals, such as nickel, vanadium, mercury, arsenic, led and cadmium [19,20,84,85,86,87,88]. In addition, the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection calculated that 89% (about 7000 tons/year) of all nickel emissions in Israel are from marine vessels (for 2018) [88]. These facts together with the findings in this study regarding higher concentrations of nickel around the Haifa and Ashdod ports, compared to the rest of Israel (Section 3.1.2), suggest that the PM_2.5 criteria pollutant emitted from the ships, includes a significant share of highly toxic contaminants. If these were accounted for, the damage cost values from the emissions would have been higher.

Moreover, the external cost values (per air pollutant emitted) that were used for the mitigation benefits calculations are the formal acceptable values recommended to be used by the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection in case of air pollution emissions from the marine sector in Israel. However, these values are currently 2–10 times lower than similar emissions from onshore stationary facilities from stacks at height below 100 m) [76]. Hoteling ships air pollution externalities in the Haifa and Ashdod ports should be the same as for urban onshore facilities, as they are practically emitting air pollution as coastline facilities from stacks at height below 100 m. Therefore, it is expected that the real external costs could be higher than the costs presented in Figure 8.

Accordingly, it is suggested that the environmental-health benefits potential of the mitigation-steps presented in this paper, should be currently regarded as rather conservative, while acknowledging that the real values may be even higher than those indicated in this paper. Future studies which can integrate related emissions’ monitoring from the ships with lab analysis data (for example, PM size distribution and chemical composition), can assist in providing more accurate estimations.

Previous studies that analyzed the cost–benefit of establishing an ECA in the Mediterranean Sea, concluded that the benefit from realizing this plan is 3–8 times higher than the cost, and will save ~4000 premature deaths annually in the area (a few hundred in Israel) [15,16]. These studies support the hypothesis that the benefits from mitigating marine emissions outweigh the cost.

When compared to the studies conducted on the Piraeus port (Section 3.1.1), The 2018 Haifa and Ashdod ports externalities are about 5 times higher per port (EUR 253 million for both Haifa and Ashdod, and EUR 24 million for Piraeus). This is expected, as SOx and PM emissions comprise the major portion of the externalities, and those in Piraeus are minimal. Interestingly, the relatively low marine emissions externalities in the Piraeus port, stress that the significant benefit from Israeli marine emissions reduction is achievable [81].

3.4. Israeli Marine Emission Mitigation Feasibility

Besides mitigation techniques’ feasibility, it is also important to examine the feasibility of the whole proposed 2030 Israeli marine emissions mitigation plan (MPS 2030). Realizing this mitigation plan will be challenging. It not only influences local actors, but carries implications for foreign countries and companies and minor marine actors, such as Israel, do not have much leverage in this matter. Moreover, the mitigation plan involves considerable expenses that would have to be paid within 5–10 years, with the benefits materializing later. These costs will be paid by the shipping companies and/or by governmental subsidies, and eventually will be passed to the consumers and/or to the residents. Either way, the government should plan it carefully, so the burden on the costumers/residents will be bearable. This is especially true in 2022, as the COVID-19 crisis is still not over, as the world is facing global supply chain challenges, and as global inflation rates rise and affect the global economy [106,107].

Nevertheless, the MPS 2030 is feasible. First, the MARPOL Annex VI is in force, and should contribute greatly to SOx and PM_2.5 emission reduction. Israel needs to complete writing it into law and to begin enforcement. Second, as mentioned above, most of Israel’s (and the world’s) marine transport sail between North America, Europe and/or China, are already (or will be in a few years) under SOx, PM_2.5 and NOx marine emissions regulation (see Section 1.1). So, most of the marine vessels visiting Israel already have, or will have in the next few years, appropriate emissions mitigation techniques on board, to comply with North American, European, or Chinese regulations. Therefore, small global actors, such as Israel, can reap the benefits of these global emission mitigation programs. Third, there is a variety of mitigation techniques that can fit different types of ships. Fourth, the economic, health and environmental benefits of this mitigation plan are probably higher than the costs of this plan [15,16].

It seems that all the knowledge, technological, and international affairs barriers for implementing a marine emissions mitigation plan have been overcome. It is now up to the government to promote such a plan that will greatly improve air quality in these cities.

4. Conclusions

A number of conclusions can be drawn from this study:

• Compared to the industrial and land transportation sectors in these cities, the marine sectors in Haifa and Ashdod emit 3–12 times more NOx, 10 times more SOx than the industrial zones (the land transportation sectors do not emit any SOx) and 4–20 times more PM_2.5.
• Relatively high average concentrations of nickel (a signature air pollutant for marine air emissions) as a fraction of TSP were found in Israel only around the Haifa and Ashdod ports, which indicates that the marine air pollution reaches the shore and therefore poses a risk to the surrounding populations.
• Air quality monitoring stations in, near and around the Haifa and Ashdod ports should be installed to properly understand the impact of marine air pollution in these cities.
• Of the total marine NOx emissions, 54% are emitted during the ships’ hoteling, while 29% and 17% are attributed to the maneuvering and stand-by and cruising navigation phases, respectively. The share of the maneuvering and stand-by phase is unusually high, due to the long average stand-by duration in these ports.
• Due to the slow replacement of international fleets, reduction in marine NOx emissions is improbable in the next decade.
• The most feasible marine emission mitigation techniques for Israel are distancing stand-by location (all emissions), SCR (selective catalytic reduction: NOx), EGR (exhaust gas recirculation: NOx), EGCS (exhaust gas cleaning systems: SOx and PM_2.5), ULSD (low or ultra-lowc sulfur diesel: SOx and PM_2.5) and ESP (electric shore power- all emissions).
• In the BAU 2030 (business as usual) scenario, NOx emissions will hardly change, PM_2.5 will drop by 27%, VOCs and CO will rise by 17% and SOx will drop by 78% (if the MARPOL VI will be fully implemented). However, in the MPS 2030 (Mitigation Plan Scenario), NOx will drop by 71%, PM_2.5 will drop by 57%, VOCs will drop by 36%, CO will drop by 31% and SOx will drop by 89%.
• The most important and beneficial policy step to mitigate the marine emissions is first to have a strong and effective local enforcement of MARPOL VI regulation for reducing SOx and PM emissions.
• Since it was found that current NOx emissions are the highest of all emissions examined and are unlikely to significantly decrease in the next decade, decision makers in Israel should consider establishing a local mitigation plan focused on NOx. This plan can achieve significant reduction for other air pollutants, including NMVOCs and CO as well as further reduction of SOx, PM_2.5 and other pollutants
• A preliminary calculation shows that the marine sectors in Haifa and Ashdod externalities are at least ILS 991 million (EUR 253 million) per year. The BAU 2030 scenario can lower them by ILS 518 million (EUR 132 million) and the MPS 2030 scenario can lower them by ILS 793 million (EUR 202 million) per year.
• Israeli marine emissions mitigation is feasible from technological and regulatory aspects.
• As of today, and increasingly more going forward, most of the large marine vessels are subjected to stricter NOx and SOx regulation at least in one of the ports in their route (North America, Europe, China); it is suggested that regulation will make it more feasible for countries to restrict their emissions, including small countries, such as Israel.

Economic motives push marine companies to send their polluting vessels to ports with low emissions standards. Furthermore, since some marine emission reduction technologies can be turned off at will, they are turned off when there is no emission reduction regulation in place, to save expenses. Therefore, even marine vessels with SOx and/or NOx emissions reduction capabilities can pollute when proper emissions standards are missing. Accordingly, it is important to include in the local mitigation plan both relevant local regulations as well as strict and efficient enforcement mechanisms.

• It is highlighted that although implementation of a local emission mitigation plan, as suggested in this paper, is a feasible step with probably more benefits than costs, it is also associated with significant economic and regulatory challenges. As most of all imports to Israel takes place by marine shipping [108], policy makers in Israel should consider the potential economic risks of imposing new costly environmental standards. The latter should be especially considered in light of the recent trend in price increase of various goods in Israel and elsewhere [106,107], which is to some extent attributed to the increase in marine shipping costs. However, since most of the global marine traffic is already (or will be in a few years) under SOx and NOx emissions restriction (North America, Europe, China), many ships have invested or are investing in complying with emissions restrictions.
• It is recommended to examine the expected costs and other strategic implications of an ambitious marine emissions reduction plan, including legal and financial ways for promoting it. It is also recommended to examine other potential public benefits of such plan, for example, opportunities for real estate development and increase of the land value around areas currently affected by marine air pollution in Haifa and Ashdod. The overall benefits of such a plan will probably outweigh its costs.