Environmental measures

Are the costs incurred by ports seeking membership to various environmental programmes – both in terms of direct subscription fees and the indirect time commitment of staff – justifying the benefits?

That is the question facing industry operators as they analyse putting their support behind programmes such as the Environmental Ship Index (ESI) and Self Diagnosis Method (SDM)/Port Environmental Review System (PERS).

Developed by the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI)/International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), the former is predicated on reducing the emissions of ships in and around ports and utilises financial rewards to incentivise carriers. The latter, developed by EcoPorts/European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), certifies ports’ environmental management systems and is a stepping stone to obtaining ISO 14001 accreditation.

When weighing up the cost/benefit calculation of SDM/PERS, EcoPorts co-ordinator Antonis Michail notes there is a growing trend for port customers to require their ports to be certified by an environmental management standard.

“In addition, in a few cases around the globe, funding of projects can be facilitated and even insurance premiums can be reduced in the case of certification,” he says.

“Ports that use SDM and PERS are given visibility through ESPO and EcoPorts.”

Self awareness

Mr Michail says the prime advantage of SDM is that it enables self-benchmarking and improvement.

“A port replies to around 230 SDM questions that address the organisation of its environmental management. The individual port answers in SDM are purely confidential. There is already a database with more than 200 of such answers that enable us to produce and maintain a European benchmark of performance.

“The port self-compares with the averages and can identify the areas where it needs to improve. In addition, the SDM checklist itself assists ports in understanding the elements of a comprehensive environmental management system. After each generic question ‘do you have an environmental policy?’ follows a series of specific ones that indicate what should be the components of a comprehensive policy.

“For PERS the main advantage is that it is the only available port sector-specific standard. PERS has been developed by ports and for ports … ISO 14001 and EMAS are more comprehensive but horizontal systems.”

Furthermore, Mr Michail says there is no subscription cost, with a valid SDM submission being the passport to the network.

“A port can voluntarily choose to submit its SDM for analytical review by our collaborating experts, the cost of the review is €495. With or without review, the port gets access to PERS and all relevant guidance on how to implement the system.

“If a port wishes to apply for certification then the cost for reviewing the submitted documentation is €995. The certification of PERS in Europe is done by Lloyd’s Register and is based on reviewing the submitted documentation only – no onsite audit, no additional costs.

“SDM can be completed by port staff without problems and is a user-friendly and straight forward exercise. For PERS, depending on the experience of the staff it might be that external advice is needed.

“Some ports have implemented PERS themselves and some through consultants. It is hard to further specify cost and efforts but overall PERS is much less costly than ISO 14001 – a minimum five-times cheaper.”

Sustainability

IAPH managing director Fer van der Laar says by addressing air quality issues through programmes such as ESI, ports deal with a potential limiting factor to their growth and incorporate sustainability into their operations.

“Ports are the indispensible key hubs in the global supply chain that enable the uninterrupted flow of world trade providing economic activities and jobs,” he says.

“The ports also have responsibilities in maintaining a clean and healthy environment in the port area. Clean and efficient land-based operations in ports are part of that responsibility but ports also try to improve the performance of ships visiting their port areas by encouraging them to reduce their air emissions as much as possible.”

Through ESI, he says, ports and other interested parties promote ships to use cleaner engines and fuels and receive preferential treatment by allowing discounts on port dues, granting bonuses and other benefits commensurate with the level of cleanliness.

“The willingness of ship owners to engage in measures to improve fuel efficiency in ships, is considered to be a direct sign of their positive attitude towards measures for the environment in general.”

Mr van der Laar claims the cost of implementing ESI is negligible; he reports that participating ports have said that time commitment of staff is not very much and, since most ports use automated systems for collection of their port dues, the administrative cost for ESI is quite minimal.

“The majority of the funds are of course spent on the incentives and although most ports are not quite open about this, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have reserved about $1m per year for the period 2013 through 2015.

“The Port of Rotterdam spends a somewhat higher amount in Euros. Smaller ports spend of course less – less cargo, less incentives – but the incentives would be in the same ratio to cargo handled as in Rotterdam.”

Strong interest

Interest in the ESI programme remains strong following “spectacular” growth of 25% per quarter in the first years following inception on January 1, 2011, continues Mr van der Laar.

“Since we have reached 2,000 ships with a valid score, the increase has slowed down to some 5%-10% on a quarterly basis. On October 1, 2014 the number of ships was 2,880.”

Similar strong interest is being expressed in the SDM/PERS programme, particularly since the 2002-founded EcoPorts organisation fully integrated with ESPO in 2011.

“The precondition to be considered an EcoPorts port is the regular – two years’ validity – completion of SDM,” notes Mr Michail. In 2011, there were 15 EcoPorts, in 2012 there were 48 ports, in 2013 there were 68 ports and in 2014 there were 75 ports in Europe, plus 4-5 international ports.

“The aim in Europe is to grow as much as possible but realistically I believe that 120 ports would be an ambitious target. There is much growth potential globally. To that end, ESPO has an agreement with the ECOSLC Foundation for the dissemination and work with SDM and PERS away from Europe and its neighbouring countries.”