(www.MaritimeCyprus.com) This report reviews port-based incentive schemes to reduce shippingÂ emissions, such as environmentally differentiated port fees.Â Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping currently represent aroundÂ 2.6% of total global emissions, but this share could more than tripleÂ by 2050. Ports have a crucial role to play in facilitating the reductionÂ of shipping emissions, alongside the ship operators themselves.Â Which incentives are currently used? What are their impacts? HowÂ could positive effects be increased? The report also explores lessonsÂ learned that could inform international negotiations on the reductionÂ of shipping greenhouse gas emissions.
Many of these measures focus on ship design and operations. However, ports also have a crucialÂ role to play in facilitating the reduction of shipping emissions. This report assesses the extent to which financial incentives at the port level could provide important lessons for the design of decarbonisationÂ policies for the maritime sector. It identifies the port-based incentives currently in place, explores theirÂ features and assesses their impacts. Importantly, it explores how the experiences with existing measuresÂ could inform international carbon-reduction negotiations for shipping and help to increase the effect ofÂ port-based environmental incentives.
A number of port-based financial incentives to mitigate emissions are already in place today. The most common financial incentive used is the environmentally differentiated port fee. This is appliedÂ in approximately 28 of the 100 largest ports in terms of total cargo volume handled (in tonnes) andÂ container volumes handled (in standard containers, or TEUs). In practice, this takes the form of aÂ reduction of port fees for ships that are considered environmentally friendly, usually based on an indexÂ related to ship characteristics. Some US ports have introduced financial incentives for ships reducingÂ speed when approaching the port. The Panama Canal Authority has a scheme that provides priority slotÂ allocation to greener ships. Spain includes environmental incentives in the tender and license criteria forÂ the towage services provided in ports. Shanghai has an emission-trading scheme in which ports andÂ domestic shipping are included and in Norway an NOx tax is in place.
Despite the prominent place of such incentive schemes, very little is known about their actualÂ impact. Public information on how many ships use these schemes is scarce and there is no port that hasÂ proven GHG emission reductions as a result of such policies. The only scheme for which serious impactÂ studies exist is the vessel speed reduction scheme in Los Angeles and Long Beach in the United States.
The dearth of data notwithstanding, it is clear that the impact of port-based incentives on globalÂ shipping emissions is marginal. The number of ports deploying financial incentives is still fairly low andÂ where they are applied only a handful of ships are benefitting from the schemes â often less than 5% ofÂ the ships calling the port. Moreover, the difference in fees for the dirtiest and cleanest ships is usuallyÂ small, normally in the order of 5% to 20%. Currently only five ports use indices in which GHGÂ emissions provide a substantial part of the index criteria. Any incentives ship-owners may currently haveÂ to order more efficient ships with lower emissions can only to a very small extent be a result of savingsÂ from port-based incentives.
Yet, ports clearly play a hugely important role in helping the shipping sector to manage theÂ transition to clean shipping. Port-based incentives for GHG emission mitigation could provide anÂ important supporting role. The first lesson learned therefore is that ports are players in this context, andÂ that they are taking actions - to both incentivise cleaner ships and to increase the efficiency of theirÂ operations, which can also have an effect on shipping emissions. Furthermore, the existing port-basedÂ measures establish that market interventions are needed to reward clean performance. The fact thatÂ financial incentives have been chosen implies there is support for flexible measures to drive behavioralÂ change.
However, more emphasis is needed on monitoring, reporting and verification of the impacts of theseÂ measures. More could also be done to enshrine the âpolluter paysâ principle. Higher rates ofÂ differentiation between vessels based on their environmental performance could drive more and fasterÂ change. It is possible within the policies to differentiate fees according to type of vessel enabling the economic activities that can afford to pay to take more of the responsibility for acting.
Click on below image to download full report:
Source:Â International Transport Forum
Reblogged this on Brittius.
Pors need to have facilities to give vessels electrical power. So after - ALL FAST- stop all vessels equipment(MOTORS) and connect to shore power. No emission from vessels in ports. As tankers has IG plant even this has to be supply by port.