Clean Baltic Sea Shipping Seminar for Russian delegates 1

ENVIRONMENTAL PORT INDEX Port dues incentives for Clean Shipping

Dr. Chris Wooldridge, Cardiff University, UK

Gun Rudeberg, Port of Stockholm Ellen Kaasik, Port of Tallinn Andrej Vatterrott, Port of Rostock Markku Alahäme, Port of Turku Ulf Sonesson, Port of Trelleborg Liselotte Rørup, Port of Kalundborg Axel Grelland, Port of Oslo Kaarina Vuorivirta, Port of Helsinki

2

Introduction

“Environmental shipping and port indexes are of paramount importance for several large ports and there will be a unique opportunity for the Baltic Sea Region to take the lead and provide an excellent show case for other maritime regions”

(www.clean-baltic-sea-shipping.eu)

3

Environmental costs

• Only clean ports will survive” • “If you think „environment‟ is expensive – try an accident” • “When you have seen one port – you have seen one port” • CBSS can deliver OPTIONS

• Blue print

4

Port Index and the CBSS project

The Port Index should act as a catalyst and indicator of good practice in environmental management of port and shipping interests:

• Reduce ship-borne air pollution at sea, in ports and in

cities • Reduce nutrient inputs from ships at sea to a zero

level • Create a joint strategy for differentiated port dues* • Create pilot projects at full scale as best practice

examples • Create a network for collaboration between

stakeholders to achieve the goals

5

Progress to date

• Completion of literature search

• Identification of potential KPIs

• Initial Group evaluation of KPIs

• Compilation of group best practice

• Data base of BPO members’ responses

• Specification for generic index model – in progress

6

What is an index? • A particular trend or condition • A scale (of numbers) which show changes

• A numerical quantity, usually lacking units, that indicates

magnitude of….effect

• A number which, by varying around a value of (10 or 100), enables a straightforward comparison over time in the average value of a set of items

• CONFIDENTIALITY - COMPETITION - ANONIMITY • MEANINGFUL - SIGNIFICANT - FEASIBLE -PRACTICABLE -

ACCEPTABLE

7

Port of Trelleborg

CURRENT PRACTICES WITH POTENTIAL INPUT FOR PORT

INDEX * indicates repeated themes reported by several Partners

NOTES AND JUSTIFICATION

1 Is port certificated or registered for Self Diagnosis Method, PERS or ISO14001?

Scope for rating EMS standard and status. Indicates standard and competence

2 Is Environmental Policy readily available and comprehensive?

Key driver of environmental management activities, programmes and practice

3 Noise*, emissions to air* including SOx, NOx, PM2.5 and PM10

Potential EPIs. Direct link to emissions and air quality

4 CO2,* Use of energy, Waste handling*, Overall air quality*

Links with PPRISM, Waste is a high priority issue throughout sector. Measures of sustainability.

5 Differentiated port dues* – Based on emissions to air and waste

Considerations of incentive programmes. Bonus – Malus Systems

6 Storm water/rain water handling and monitoring

Influence on environmental condition and cargo storage

Group Good Practice I

8

Scope of Index

Key Performance Indicators – for BALTIC

• Port and Shipping

• Operational

• Conditional

• Managerial

• Monitoring

• Reporting List of potential KPIs

Examples of current good practice

Port of Helsinki

9

Components of Index

• Input data (Units)

• Standardization/Normalization

• Weighting to be applied?

• Source and reliability of data

• Compilation

• Evaluation

• Reporting Port of Turku

10

Specification of Index

• Ship-borne air pollution

• Port reception facilities – sewage

• Harmonization and standardization of environmentally friendly infrastructure

• Baseline calculations of emissions in (Partner ports*)

• Availability of electricity, gas, LNG*

• Economic instruments such as differentiated port dues*

11

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE • Compliance with legislation and regulation • Continuous environmental improvement • Control of Environmental Aspects • „Voluntary self-regulation‟ - evidence • Sustainable development and environmental

protection • Shipping* • Level playing field • Fixed goal posts

Environmental Indicators

For the Port Authority, Sector and Baltic*

Port of Stockholm

12

Environmental condition Indicators

1. Carbon Footprint

2. Amount of waste recycled

3. Total water consumption

Consolidated Environmental Management Indicators

Existence/reference to:

1. Environmental Management Programme

2. Environmental Policy

3. Reference to ESPO Code

4. Inventory of Legislation

5. Inventory of Significant Environmental Aspects

6. Objectives and Targets

7. Training

8. Monitoring Programme

9 . Environmental Report

PPRISM Proposed indicators

13

Stakeholders assessment results

EPI Condition

Clean Shipping

Project (*33)

BPA Conference

(114)

1st ESPO SD Committee

(17)

2nd ESPO SD Committee

(11)

On-line survey (114)

Overall (289)

Carbon dioxide emissions 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.67 3.7

Waste (excl. ships) 3.8 4.0 3.5 3.8 3.59 3.7

Water consumption 2.9 3.6 3.1 3.4 3.43 3.3

EPI Management

Environmental Management Programme 4.6 4.0 4.3 4.6 3.85 4.3

Environmental Policy 4.5 - - 4.3 3.98 4.3

Monitoring programme 4.4 3.9 3.7 4.0 3.98 4.0

Environmental Report 4.3 3.9 - 4.3 3.81 4.1

Objectives and Targets 4.3 - - 4.2 3.86 4.1

Environmental Training 4.1 - - 4.0 3.86 4.0

ESPO Code of Practice 3.8 - - 3.9 3.67 3.8

Inventory of Aspects 3.7 - 3.8 4.5 3.88 4.0

Inventory of Legislation 3.6 - - 4.2 3.78 3.9

*Number of respondents Results between 1 – 5 (where 1 = least and 5 = most)

14

Stakeholders assessment results

Results between 1 – 5 (where 1 = least and 5 = most)

15

Environmental Management Indicator Weighting

Environmental Management System 1

Environmental Monitoring Programme 1.25

Inventory of Significant Environmental Aspects 1.5

Environmental Policy 1.5

ESPO/National/Organizational Code of Practice 0.5

Inventory of environmental legislation 1.5

Objectives and Targets 1

Environmental Training 0.75

Environmental Report 1

16 The European Sea Ports Conference

Sopot, Poland 11th May 2012

Environmental (pprism.espo.be)

• 125 Initial EPIs

• Operational

• Management

• Condition

• 289 feedback

17

Port Sources included Percentages Years Results Comments

A Corunna (Spain)

PA vehicles PA boilers Electricity port area

4 % 7 % 89 %

2009 2008 2007 2006

1124 t CO2 1357 t CO2

1296.5 t CO2 1301 t CO2

Results reported since 2006 Reduction of 13.6 % (2006 -09) Published in Sustainability report 2009

Antwerp (Belgium)

Stationary sources Mobile sources PA buildings Electricity Business travel Commuting

19 % 51 % 10 % 13 % 1 % 6 %

2008 34700 t CO2e Calculated from 2000 – 2008 Results presented in the GreenPorts Conference 2011, Venice

Dover (UK)

Gas Oil Refrigerant Gases Owned vehicles Electricity

23 % 2 % 1 % 74 %

2009 2008

13279 t CO2 15340 t CO2

Results reported since 2008 Reduction of 13.4 % (2008 -09) Published in their Environmental Bulletin 2009

Oslo (Norway)

Direct emissions Indirect emissions Other indirect emissions

44 % 34 % 22 %

2008 2007

1346 t CO2e 704 t CO2e

Increase in 47.7% (2007 - 08) Published in the port of Oslo report: CO2 emissions for the year 2008.

Rotterdam (The Netherlands)

Direct emissions Indirect emissions Other indirect emissions

31 % 15 % 54 %

2008 2007

29094 t CO2 33043 t CO2

Results reported since 2007 Reduction of 12 % (2007 - 08) Published in their Annual Report 2009

Examples of best practice in Carbon Footprint

18

Best Practices in Waste management

Source Corunna Algeciras Cartagena Castellon Catalan Dover Santander

Solid Waste

Organic 1099 t Total solid waste

1.3tonnes

196.64 t 1152 t 4120 kg

Paper 344 t 8.82 t 1.4 t 861 kg √ 5540 kg

Plastics 57 t 3.9 t 10.1 t 0.095 m3 140 kg

Non-hazardous industrial waste

Scrap metal 154 t 4873 kg √

Wood 3321 m3 165 t 1 m3

Electronic waste 460 kg 0.19 t 54 u √

Oil filters 0.14 t 4 u √

Hazardous waste

Ink cartridges 152 u 167 u 117 u 149 u

Used Oil 2400 l 1 t 10 kg 3 l √ 1.5 t

Fluorescents 1201 l 160 kg 24 kg 209 u √ 80 kg

Batteries 0.313 t 400 kg 499 kg 31.7 kg √ 43 u

19 Observatory/Dashboard

Environmental Management Components Average score: 7.4 (out of 10)

20

PORT OF KALININGRAD

• Garbage/Waste management

• Pollution

• OSR Exercise 09/10/2012

21

PORT OF SAINT - PETERSBURG

• Corporate Social Responsibility

• Ecological Partnership Association

• Environmental Policy

• Monitoring: Air, Water, Waste

22

• ISO 14001 • KPI: Air -3%, Waste -11% Water -7.5% • Dzhubga – Lazarevskoye – Sochi gas pipeline • Adler CHPS (Combined Heat and Power Station)

23

Year Waste, thous. m³

Sewage, thous. tons

Oily waters, thous. tons

2009 10.3 13.7 68.2

2010 9.9 9.3 62.8

2011 13.0 12.9 63.5

Year Waste, tons Oily waters, tons

2009 728 312

2010 523 224

2011 376 154

Information on amount of waste collected by FSUE "Rosmorport" from vessels in seaports

Waste and oily contaminants from Saint-Petersburg, Vladivostok, Vostochny and Naskhodka

Federal state unitary enterprise

ROSMORPORT

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES

• Reception/Collection

• Transportation

• Emergency

• Safety of navigation

• Surveying and nav. aids

24

BPO member‟s website survey*

1. Presence of Environmental Information on port‟s website

2. Achievement of PERS/ISO or EMAS

3. Publicly available Environmental Policy Statement

4. Publication of Environmental Report

5. Evidence of Environmental Monitoring

6. Identified EPIs to provide evidence of trends

7. Publication of data and science-based reports

8. Differentiated fees/dues – Economic Instruments

9. Examples of established good practice

25

Port Code

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

33 Yes Yes,

ISO 14001 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Solutions for sorting of waste in the ports and

fixed systems for handling waste

water, grey water and black water from the ships.

- Noise - Diesel consumption per tonne of handled goods

- Emissions to air, land and water - Diesel and energy consumption - Waste management - Cooperation projects

34 Yes

Yes, ISO 14001 in several

terminal operators

Yes No N/M N/M N/M No

The port applies an

environmentally differentiated port charge,

which means that vessels that offer

good environmental performance

receive a discount

N/M

- Onshore power supply for vessels -Rail shuttles to replace road transport - Gas recycling in conjunction with the loading and discharge of oil - The port facilitates the use of LNG as ship fuel. - Green Bunkering to reduce the risk of oil spills.

Example of BPO survey responses

5 out of 48 websites mention Differentiated fees*

26

QUESTIONS Oceania % YES

Asia % YES

Africa %

YES

North America % YES

Latin America % YES

ESPO Environmental Review 2009 (122

ports) % YES

Baltic Ports (48

ports) % YES

1 Does the port website show Environmental Information? 56 4 20 16 20 69 69

2 Does the port have an EMS? 60 20 32 28 20 48 38

3 Does the port have an Environmental Policy? 72 28 36 44 28 72 46

4 Is the Environmental Policy made available to the public? 36 8 12 24 16 62 27

5 Does the port publish an Environmental Report / Review? 56 20 20 36 16 43 27

6 Is environmental monitoring carried out in your port? 72 32 40 56 24 77 40

7

Has the port identified environmental indicators to monitor trends in environmental performance?

44 16 24 44 8 60 31

8

Does the port publish factual data by which the public can assess the trend of its environmental performance?

4 0 8 20 0 36 15

27

Role and status of Index

• Ports set an example

• Demonstrate standards and best practice

• Ports are catalysts for action

• Encourage culture of monitoring and reporting

• Integration to mutual advantage

• Baseline and benchmark

28

ISSUES & ASPECTS INDICATORS INDEX NOTES

1. Port Environmental Management

• EMS*

• Policy

• ESPO Code

• Inventory of Aspects

• Inventory of Legislation

• Objectives* & targets*

• KPIs* and Monitoring*

• Training

• Reporting

• Infrastructure

1.00*

1.50

0.50

1.50

1.50

1.00

1.25

0.75

1.00

?

Indicative of competence & standard of Port environmental programme. Data from SDM/PERS, PPRISM & Website. *Shipping aspects integrated.

2. Environmental Condition

• Air

• Water

• Soil

• Sediment

• Ecosystems/Habitats

• Water Consumption*

• Carbon Footprint (Scope 3)

?

Selected EPIs for each category (each port unique). Trend more significant than absolute value. Baseline and benchmark value.

3. Shipping Aspects* • Vessel speed reduction

• Green Ship Promotion*

• On-shore Power Supply

• (Automated Mooring)

• Exhaust gas/Auxiliary

• Waste

?

Voluntary/Virtual Arrival

Green fees/ESI/CSI

Influence of economic instruments.

CLEAN BALTIC SEA SHIPPING: PORT INDEX (Potential model)

Port: Driver – Set an example - Mitigate – Support – Encourage - Enforce

29

KPI Y/N Evidence Trend Detail

1. EMS

• i)

• ii)

• iii)

Y

Y

Y

Certificate

ppm

www.

ISO14001

Particulates

Training

2. Condition

• i)

• ii)

• iii)

Y

N

N

GHG Scope 3

3. Shipping

• i)

• ii)

• iii)

• iv)

Y

N

Y

Y

www.

Green fees

OSP

ESI

- 12%

- 13.6%

Index of Sustainability - DASHBOARD

30

Port - Shipping Aspects

1. CO2 Emissions

2. Vessel speed reduction

a) Voluntary

b) Virtual arrival

3. Green Ship Promotion

a) ESI (Environmental Ship)

b) CSI (Clean Ship)

c) EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design)

4. On-shore power supply

5. Automated mooring

6. Exhaust gas control

7. Port infrastructure

8. Reception facilities

9. Bunkering options

10. VTS

11. Own vessels

31

EPI Response Weighting

Port EMS

•

•

•

X

1.0

1.5

0.5

Environment

•

•

•

1.5

1.5

1.0

Shipping

•

•

•

X

1.5

0.5

1.0

PPRISM – SDM – ESPO - BPO

PA & Sector

• Baseline

• Benchmark

• Evidence

• Image

• 5 x E‟s

• > Risk

• Level field

• Goal posts

• Initiative*

Environment

• Aspects

• Improvement

• Sustainability

• Emissions

• Discharges

• Quay - City

• Area - Chain

DRAFT PORT INDEX

32

Pathway to completion (31st March 2013)

1. Refinement & acceptance of Index concept

2. Input data – sources and standardization

3. Weighting – Baseline - Benchmark

4. Pilot sample – evaluation and validation

5. Input from ‘Supporting Studies’* CBSS

6. Input – interpretation – use

7. Recognition

8. R&D deliverable – Practicable tool?*

33

THANKS TO THE PORT INDEX RESEARCH GROUP PILOT 5

and

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION