Chapter 4.5 – Green Port Governance

Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis

The greening of port management is a process affecting port authorities safeguarding their license to operate and increasing their economic and environmental competitiveness.

1. Port Authorities and Green Ports

A. Sources of environmental pollution in ports

Since ports are generators of externalities, environmental concerns linked to port activity are mounting. The focus on environmental issues is especially keen for vessel and cargo handling operations, industrial activities in ports, port planning, and extension initiatives, and hinterland accessibility. The prime sources of the environmental impact of seaports include pollution related to port-related construction and operations. These include air emissions of ships at berth, terminal handling equipment (such as cranes and yard equipment), and logistics and industrial activities in the port. There is also noise associated with port-related operations and the environmental effects and potential congestion associated with landside operations of barges, rail, and trucks.

There are nine groups of environmental facets in port development and construction, including water quality, coastal hydrology, soil contamination, marine, and coastal ecology, air quality, noise and vibration, waste management, visual intrusion, and socio-cultural impacts such as the relocation of communities. This classification provides possible realms of engagement, mitigation, and policy-making and requires precise measurements of respective impacts and externalities.

Air pollution is one of the major environmental impacts generated by ports, particularly greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, leading to climate change since GHG traps heat. This, in turn, distorts the natural ecosystem. There are also health effects impacting the residents of the local community surrounding ports which include asthma, other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and premature mortality. The main sources of air pollution in ports include:

  • Ships port calls, which are a source of air pollutants such as CO2, SOx, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, HC, CO, and VOC. The maritime shipping industry contributes 2.5% to 3% of annual human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, in which the largest portion is derived from container shipping. Without countermeasures, the emissions of sulfur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) of the shipping industry would exceed all other emission sources in transport and result in poor air quality in ports and their surroundings. To reduce, and eventually halt emissions, some important steps have already been taken. They include the judicial implementation of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (Annex VI) that imposes limitations on the main air pollutants contained in ships exhaust as well as plans for implementing additional requirements, the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. The Convention places a cap on sulfur within particular areas (Emission Control Areas – ECAs). For example, in the SECA (Sulfur Emission Control Area) in the North and Baltic Seas area, the mass fraction of sulfur in bunker fuel has to be less than 1% from 2010. North America installed similar arrangements in 2012. This limit was decreased to less than 0.1% from 2015. The worldwide sulfur limit of 3.5% in bunker fuel was reduced to 0.5% in early 2020. Specific sulfur caps exist when ships are in port. Alternative fuels are considered (Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), and hydrogen) to reduce ship emissions at sea and in ports. Onshore power supply solutions (or cold ironing) can help to reduce ship emissions in port significantly.
  • Land side activities, particularly cargo operations at terminals, which form another source of airborne emission. Emissions of dust from bulk cargo handling, electricity consumption, and gases from cargo handling equipment and trucks adversely affect air quality. Regarding landside operations connecting inland transport, environmental impacts caused by intermodal connections and congestion lead to adverse effects, particularly air pollution emitted by internal combustion engines. Depending on modal choices and the associated cost and transit time requirements from shippers, such environmental effects vary and can be mitigated.
  • Industrial and logistics activities in and near port areas. These also contribute to total air emissions but tend to be considered outside port emissions.

Another major environmental concern is water pollution and its effects on marine ecosystems. Water pollution comes from ballast water, fuel oil residue and waste disposal from ship operations, and cargo residue. These marine pollutants are harmful to natural habitats located around port waters, which would upset marine and coastal ecology and lead to the damage and loss of coastal ecology and fishery resources. The need for navigation channel deepening and widening would lead to contaminated sludge from dredging.

Untreated water and waste disposal from port operations, industrial activities, construction, and expansion projects causes another major category of environmental externality. This includes solid, liquid, and hazardous wastes. Waste lubricants, oily mixtures, solid waste (garbage), wastes from cargo operations, daily administration, and buildings also create pollution. Disposal of these contaminated materials on land may cause destruction of plants, leakage of contaminated materials, unpleasant sights, and other nuisances to the local community. Hence, improper waste control and treatment can be a significant strain on the natural environment surrounding the port area. An international policy agenda has already been developed referring to the availability and adequacy of port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. Together with establishing systems that provide incentives for ships to use, these facilities reduce ship discharges into the sea.

Relevant provisions have been adopted in Annexes V and VI of MARPOL. These provisions define which wastes can be discharged into the sea and impose obligations to provide facilities for the reception of ship-generated residues and garbage. They also avoid inadequate reception and handling and inadequate delivery by ships of their waste cargo residues. Regional initiatives (i.e., the European Union Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues) align legislation with international initiatives and address the legal, financial, and practical responsibilities of the different operators involved when operating at ports.

Waste management in ports implies a hierarchy containing several steps in a preferred order of priority, with the first three of the following being the most desirable ones:

  • Reducing the use of resources and minimizing the quantities and hazardous qualities of the waste generated.
  • Reuse. Using products or items again for the same or different purposes.
  • Recycling. reprocessing valuable components/materials of waste for use as a feedstock to manufacture the same or a different product.
  • Recovery. Obtaining value from wastes by composting, energy recovery, or other technologies.
  • Disposal. If there is no other appropriate solution, waste disposal by landfilling and incineration without energy recovery. Waste disposal has various options depending on the type of waste and according to acceptable environmental standards.

Two initial steps allow achieving better results:

  • Waste segregation separates waste, making it useable or less difficult to dispose of. Waste segregation at source is a prerequisite to securing separate fractions of sufficient quality for different treatment processes.
  • Waste treatment to reduce hazards or nuisance, preferably at the site of generation. The need for treatment and the level and type of treatment are determined by the requirement of its use or disposal.

B. The greening of port management

The greening of port management is attracting growing attention in business practice as the growing green reflex is mirrored in the many green initiatives of individual ports and the coordinated actions of the wider port community (See Chapter 2.5 for an overview of initiatives), Port authorities show increasing concerns about the impacts of noise pollution, waste disposal, water pollution and air emissions on the sustainable functioning of the port since they represent the externalities that have the most identifiable impacts on the health of people working or living around ports. Limiting pollution is not only an environmental goal for port authorities. It has also become a clear mission in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and stakeholder relations management in port areas.

It has become evident that any port infrastructure project can be constrained by environmental factors and the public response they can generate. Thus, ports are facing higher pressure from the public in terms of performing their social responsibility. Ports must demonstrate an ever-higher level of environmental performance to ensure community support. Ports need to comply with ever-higher regulatory and societal requirements in the fields of environmental protection, which can impact the footprint for the ports to grow, not only in terms of hectares but also in terms of so-called environmental space. This challenges seaports to minimize emissions of existing and future activities in the port areas and the wider logistics area. Environmental aspects also play an increasing role in attracting trading partners and potential investors. A port with a strong environmental record and a high level of community support is likely to be favored.

As such, green port governance is considered a key strategic challenge to port authorities and the wider port communities. Without proper environmental governance, tools and policies in ports, there is an increased risk of having a clear imbalance between the benefits and costs of ports for the local community. Such imbalances potentially form a breeding ground for major socio-economic confrontations related to port development and operations.

2. Instruments and Tools for Promoting Green Ports

Given the potential environmental impacts of port development and operations, port authorities or any other managing bodies of a seaport are challenged to avoid and or reduce effects through a range of green management tools and instruments. In the following sections, three groups of tools and instruments are discussed in more detail: (a) penalty and incentive pricing, (b) monitoring and measuring, (c) market access control and environmental standard regulation.

Instruments can also be grouped into two categories, which are instruments that directly limit environmental impacts and instruments that do not. Such a range of instruments in a port terminal context can be used to influence the green behavior of a terminal operator.

A. Penalty and incentive pricing

Port authorities can use port pricing (Chapter 5.4) as an environmental incentive tool in ports. Motivating or giving an incentive pricing to the good doers and punishing or giving a penalty pricing to the wrongdoers is an effective tool to promote environmental awareness. Pricing control by port authorities is most commonly used in shipping traffic, followed by industrial activities at ports. Voluntary schemes aimed at cleaner ships, such as rewarding the use of low sulfur fuel oil (LSFO), are the most common. A pioneering example is the Port of Long Beach which implemented the Green Flag Speed Reduction Program. By slowing down, ships can reduce airborne emissions, and shipowners, in return, are granted a discount the following year as an incentive.

Another good example is green port dues, such as the Environmental Ship Index (ESI) program. Ship operators typically embrace such voluntary schemes, particularly when the implementation and further refinement/updating of such programs go hand in hand with a proactive and constructive collaboration between the maritime industry and the respective government agencies or port authorities. However, since prices paid by shipping companies and other port users affect their commercial behavior and decisions, price regulation may lead to market distortions if not uniformly applied among competing ports.

B. Monitoring and measuring

Ports are highly vulnerable to unfounded claims of environmental damage. To deflect such claims, ports need quantifiable and detailed information on the impacts of their operations on the adjacent environment. Port authorities and wider port communities should communicate how environmental impacts associated with port operations are being effectively managed. By monitoring the air quality, water quality, and policy development, the port authority could keep track of the port’s environmental performance, and subsequently formulate or modify its targeted strategies and policies.

Many port authorities have increased transparency on environmental impacts and broader sustainability aspects by publishing annual or bi-annual sustainability reports. The practice of sustainability reporting, beyond mere environmental reporting, started in the late 1990s. More recently, the port industry has adopted this sort of reporting to conceptualize sustainability and as an essential basis for the license to operate. Mainly larger port authorities have started producing sustainability reports or integrated reporting voluntarily in the past decade (e.g. Antwerp, Hamburg, Rotterdam). In contrast, others have been obliged to adopt the practice due to enforced legislation by governments when it comes to example-setting by state-owned enterprises (e.g., Swedish ports). Ports increasingly follow global guidelines and standards for sustainability reporting (such as the Global Reporting Initiative – GRI).

In 2016, the first Sustainability Report at the level of the European Port Industry was presented in the context of the European Commission PORTOPIA project. Using datasets present within the European Seaports Organisation (ESPO) and the ECOPORTS project, it revealed that many unsolved conceptual issues and differences in approach among ports remain when it comes to sustainability reporting:

  • The scope and the boundaries of the reporting, i.e., organizational, functional, or geographical boundaries.
  • The perspectives of performance and the calculation/definition of indicators.
  • The integration of stakeholder perspectives.

C. Market access control and environmental standard regulation

Access regulation controls how terminal operators and other port actors access the facilities they need to compete in the market. Access regulation can include elements concerning emissions and overall environmental performance. A good example is how environmental criteria can be used in the competitive bidding procedure for a terminal concession.

Port authorities might have varying degrees of regulatory jurisdiction to restrict market access and stipulate environmental standards. In other words, the discretionary powers of port authorities in environmental matters have their limits. In most cases, the bulk of the regulatory power can be found at the regional, national or supranational level. For example, international conventions, like MARPOL, give each signatory nation the accountability to enact domestic laws to implement the convention and to comply with it.

Other than international regulatory control, legislation is at various levels depending on the country/port. It could be a stated law from national government, a law stipulated by the municipality, certain rules set by the port authority (such as the Clean Truck Program for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach), or a mutually binding agreement between the port authority and market players such as concession agreements. Although regulations are usually strict, their implementation and enforcement might be slow and weak due to a lack of local legitimacy caused by conflicting interests of stakeholders. They might also come at a high regulation cost for both implementation and enforcement. While the environmental level playing field among ports continues to be considered, attention has shifted to the need to cooperate, both nationally and internationally, to push the green port agenda forward.

3. Challenges to Green Port Governance

Port authorities have realized that further greening is required to maintain their competitive edge and their license to operate, but it can also create earning opportunities. In practice, the attitude of port authorities can range from reactive monitoring of general environmental management programs to more proactive approaches aimed at value creation and revenue-making.

However, port communities also understand that the challenges remain immense and progress made is not at the same level in all domains of action:

  • Reducing the environmental footprint commonly requires drastic and large-scale solutions such as Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a further push towards greener shipping and modal shift.
  • The greening of ports also demands a shift in perspectives, values, and a joint commitment and dedication of the parties involved. More than ever, port authorities and market players will have to call out to other partners in the chains to achieve green corporate and societal objectives. Success typically depends on coordination and cooperation between the involved actors and the availability, use, and sharing of data through appropriate platforms and systems.
  • As many landlord port authorities have been corporatized, investment recovery is often cited as a critical aspect of green initiatives.

Like private companies, port authorities have become very sensitive to the coherence, continuity, and legal certainty of developed government policies. As many investment decisions have a medium to long-term payback time, any changes in government policy can have huge implications for the soundness of the initial decision related to a green initiative. This is particularly the case for the abolition of a subsidy scheme for specific green investments. Thus, government policies and regulations should provide legal and investment certainty to the affected port authorities and private businesses.

Instead of opting for a one size fits all approach in environmental initiatives, landlord port authorities are invited to evaluate carefully:

  • Whether they have a role to play, such as will their involvement likely lead to a superior outcome compared to no involvement?
  • What tools or instruments to use, such as pricing, knowledge development/sharing, and investment?
  • Whether they should act as facilitators or entrepreneurs. In some cases, port authorities move beyond the pure facilitation role by entering into key investments, particularly when private investors show more reluctance to do so.

While many port authorities are very active in implementing the green port concept, progress remains difficult in some areas, such as the large-scale implementation of cold ironing solutions for deep-sea vessels, or the greening of terminal concession procedures and agreements.

Given the position of seaports as key nodes in global supply chains and logistics networks, it is tempting to push port authorities to take up a role as tax collectors for the related environmental damage. Policymakers should not force port authorities to act as the convenient tax collectors for greening supply chains at the supranational or national level. Any internalization of environmental costs should target the polluter at source and cannot lead to an obligation for port authorities to punish for externalities or to reward environmental performance. Obviously, the above point does not imply that port authorities should refrain from launching such schemes on a voluntary basis, either individually or in collaboration with other ports.

4. Green Port Governance and Stakeholders

Stakeholder relations management has become an important part of port management and strategy (see Chapter 7.3). In dealing with stakeholders, port authorities can resort to effective environmental management, which includes:

  • An environmental management system. In essence, this is a documented process that describes a structure for the management of environmental impact processes and continuous improvements, such as environmental risk assessment and management actions to address those risks.
  • Environmental monitoring and reporting. Ports are extremely vulnerable to unfounded claims of environmental damage, such as those related to dredging. To deflect such claims, ports need quantifiable and detailed information on the environmental impacts of their operations. Examples of environmental reporting are environmental impact assessment studies associated with port expansion, reports related to dredging impacts, and monitoring of natural resources such as wetland conditions and bird populations, and migration. A growing number of ports are developing sustainability reports on an annual or regular basis.
  • Community consultation forms a key component of environmental management. Ports should communicate how environmental impacts associated with port operations are being effectively managed. If a port starts a dialogue with the local community only in response to a problem, a negative perception in the community could be the outcome. The key is to identify what aspects of port development are negotiable and then communicate this to the community.
  • Land use strategies should identify plans for future port operation and strategies to conserve and protect conservation value areas, such as buffers and wildlife corridors. By coming to terms with both the community and the government on future port activities, a port can reach a higher level of certainty that it will grow and meet changing trade needs.

When ecosystems are damaged or lost due to port development, port authorities should interact with stakeholders to find answers to some important questions about the restoration of environmental assets:

  • What is to be restored; the resource itself or resource services?
  • How much restoration is required to compensate for the loss?
  • What alternative does the cost-effective restoration option provide?
  • Do the benefits to be obtained from the restoration justify the costs?
  • Who pays, or how can the costs be shared equitably?

These questions raise real concerns for green port governance as mitigation and compensation measures can add between 10% and 20% to the port project cost.

5. Green Cruise Ports

Not only cargo ports are challenged to reduce environmental impacts. The aspirations to host more cruise activities are increasingly combined with the strategic importance of sustainability and green cruise governance. To a great extent, this combination is, ironically, founded on achieving already remarkable growth.

A. The cruise environmental challenge

The gigantism of cruise ships and the multiplication of cruise itineraries implies an increased number of passengers arriving at a destination with one call alone, posing significant challenges on cruise ports and destinations hosting them. The contemporary cruise segment of the sector, which represents more than 75% of cruises, is offered by vessels that exceed the 3,000 passengers and 1,000 crew threshold. This implies the mass arrivals of tourists at local destinations, concerns for overcrowding, congestion, massive operations, considerable footprint, and needs for receiving quantities of waste. Justifiably or not, local communities have started questioning the unqualified growth of cruising, which had for long been taken as a beneficial development. While the benefits, in terms of spending at destinations, are profound, this growth might be associated with congestion and several related externalities to be addressed.

A condition to enable local communities to extract the greatest benefit from cruise market growth is the endorsement of best practices and policy options to mitigate the externalities produced by cruise shipping. The challenges to be addressed relate to three pillars, one of them referring to the environment. Addressing the externalities produced by the provision of cruise shipping and the hosting of vessels and cruise passengers at cruise ports stands today as a priority. Environmental externalities refer to the handling of waste produced, water quality, air emissions, noise, and soil, as well as to other issues (i.e., constructions that alter natural or built environment, fauna, energy resources). Two key externalities are waste management and the various forms of emissions, including air and noise emissions. Their importance and global presence have led to discussion and conclusions on measures to occur at the international level.

B. Waste management

A key issue on cruising and the environment is developing effective policies and practices for collecting and handling the waste and garbage produced onboard. As a cruise ship carries several thousand passengers and crew in an enclosed facility, an array of municipal utilities such as water supply, electricity generation, sewers, and waste management are found onboard. The amount and types of waste might vary from one cruise ship to another, yet cruises are generators of the highest amount of garbage compared to other shipping markets. A cruise ship with 3,000 passengers and crew generates about 50 tons of solid waste in a single week and an average of 50 tons of sewage (black water) per day. IMO uses a figure of 3.5 kg/passenger/day, while the US Department of Transportation data estimates that the generated waste during a typical one-week voyage includes 25.000 gallons of oily bilge water; 210.000 gallons of sewage (or black water), one million gallons of non-sewage wastewater and eight tons of solid waste (i.e., plastic, paper, wood, cardboard, food, cans, glass).

Most cruise lines and port authorities have implemented environmental management systems to ensure improved waste reception operations. Cruise lines have put effort into reducing, selecting, and managing the garbage generated onboard in compliance with MARPOL requirements. An environmental policy goal of ‘zero discharge’ for solid waste at sea has been endorsed by several of them, putting pressure on cruise ports to go beyond the environmental regulatory obligations. Waste management at the port is vital, as is shipboard recycling, oil wastes treatment, management of hazardous wastes, and ballast water management for cruise companies. Similarly, cruise ports implement solid waste management processes. They develop facilities, technologies, and services to allow for continuity in a cruise ship’s garbage life cycle that is more efficient. Today, port reception facilities are generally available, and the volumes of waste delivered, compared to that discharged at sea, have increased.

A significant concern for cruise ports, operators, and involved third parties is developing efficient information and monitoring systems allowing for the best use of the mechanisms present. Reducing solid waste and increasing recycling via the availability of garbage reception facilities at all berths, 24 hours a day, seven days per week, demands stakeholders’ cooperation to manage better ship-generated waste and, not least, the application of innovative technologies. Cruise ports need to promote handling services such as segregation, biological reprocessing, inactivation and composting, recycling, and storage. Together, these actors can explore waste treatment possibilities on ships via investment in advancing innovative new technologies. These efforts could decrease the significant disparity between waste management ashore and disposal services at the destination.

Improving wastewater treatment capacities is a process of importance. In this case, the IMO has already designated special areas for passenger ships (i.e., the Baltic sea) where the discharge of sewage from a cruise ship will be prohibited through a gradual process. Stakeholders undertake initiatives to ensure that facilities for the reception of sewage are provided in ports and terminals where coastal countries can report that the sewage reception facilities in their ports fulfill the criteria of adequacy.

C. Emission control

Cruise port and cruise shipping-related emissions have attracted great interest among decision-makers and in port-cities that experience port and port-related operations’ negative externalities. Cruise shipping is a relatively large emitter due to the large hoteling load. Even though the average emissions in a port account are comparatively low, cruise terminals are often close to city centers, meaning that population exposure might be on the higher side. Significant differences in CO2 emissions can be observed between individual cruise ships depending on the size, the age, and the ship’s capacity configuration (i.e., high-end luxury cruise ships vs. mass cruise ships). The largest ships show the lowest CO2 output partly because of the high occupancy rate in the number of beds per surface unit and their relatively young age.

The need to control emissions, along with the international regulatory frameworks restricting the use of fueling options, has triggered interest in alternative forms of powering cruise vessels. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) has emerged as the primary alternative fuel for the shipping industry as many new buildings have dual-fuel engines that allow them to use heavy oil or LNG. Cruise ships have the highest adoption build rate among the different types of seagoing vessels; LNG will power 19 out of 105 cruise ships to be delivered between 2018 and 2026, and more cruise lines are committing to LNG-fueled cruise ships. This increase creates for the cruise port industry the need for the provision of LNG bunkering facilities. Cruise ports can also use LNG to fuel their handling and transport equipment and serve the energy needs of the cruise terminal buildings, such as air conditioning. Cold ironing or shoreside power facilities are also installed in several urban cruise terminals to reduce the environmental impact of docked ships.

The application of measures to reduce emissions, including onshore power for cruise ships, remains subject to regional variations. For example, it is further developed in North America than in Europe, with future technologies, such as wind and solar power, also options under consideration.

Regarding noise emissions, there are different noise sources on ships during their dockage at ports, classified as diesel generator engine exhaust, ventilation inlets/outlets, and secondary noise sources, e.g., pumps or reefers. Cruise ship operations generate disturbing noise for nearby areas and the crew, and they are also sources of low-frequency noises. The IMO has already defined a Code on noise levels on board ships detailing limits for the different types of noise and set limits for the noise emitted into the surroundings. However, the existing international framework covers only the noise onboard ships but not in a port or during maneuvering. While the latter activities are in some countries subject to additional regulations, an international discussion for global rules would facilitate an effective and sustaining answer concerning the limits of noise emissions produced by cruise vessels at the port.

D. Regulating an emerging industry

In environmental challenges, international regulations are highly appropriate when a legislative approach is found wanting. The most appropriate way to deal with environmental externalities uniformly, hence securing a level playing field for the entire cruise industry, is the endorsement of international policy instruments. In the significant parts of the market (i.e., North America, Europe), legislation is already endorsed as the main driver of the need for environmental management tools. In emerging areas, such as Asia, environmental considerations remain for the moment of secondary importance. Beyond legislation, agreements on associated issues – such as the presence of remote monitoring systems as tools for improving the level of cruise and port environmental conditions – which demand complex and expensive processes are better addressed at the international level, rather than being causes of distorting competition.

The industry has implemented several self-regulatory practices that have secured growth and remarkable operational acheivements. Even on the environmental front, self-regulation at the international level is not rare. Cruise companies spend heavily to install exhaust gas cleaning technology (scrubbers) to reduce air emissions from cruise ships. Receiving support from governmental organizations (i.e. Carnival has established links with the US Coast Guard and Transport Canada on this issue, while Royal Caribbean International has developed similar initiatives) and through discussion would help develop and implement environmental technology to comply with existing regulation or even pre-empt future ones. Cooperation aims to advance innovation and alternative approaches at the international level to facilitate adjustments and solutions meeting the challenges related to shore power for cruise ships. Similarly, meaningful international cruise emissions inventories would provide information on several unknown factors, such as the actual emissions of ships while docked compared with when they are at sea or comparison with emissions from other shipping sectors. All these would inform adjustments of the related regulatory frameworks.

Environmental externalities have been the theme of initiatives collectively developed by the port industry within respective port associations. Individual ports use environmental management systems compliant with ISO14001 and other practices and tools available to manage environmental issues. Incentive pricing is also applied as a means to address environmental challenges. Ships producing reduced quantities of ship-generated waste are subject to lower dues, as discounts are offered based on green award certificates or the basis of an environmental ship index. However, even in this case, the presence of common principles would facilitate the identification of such ships. Simultaneously, it would limit questions on the effectiveness of the tools in application, and not least the potential for cross-subsidization between ship types depending on the markets served.

Overall environmental issues regarding cruise shipping and those regarding cruise ports are strongly interconnected. Thus the tools, measures, and policies to combat the externalities caused by these two industries require a holistic study and approach to be developed internationally. Reports, studies, and essential inventories of internalizing external costs are another field beyond regulation that international level discussions might advance, facilitating the growth of cruise activities.

Related Topics


  • Bergqvist, R. and Egels-Zandén, N., 2012. Green port dues—The case of hinterland transport. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 5, 85-91.
  • Geerts, M., Dooms, M., 2017. Sustainability reporting by port authorities: a comparative analysis of leading world ports. IAME 2017 conference, Kyoto, paper no. 317
  • Lam, J.S.L. and Notteboom, T., 2014. The greening of ports: a comparison of port management tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Reviews, 34(2), 169-189.
  • Maigret, A., 2014. Sustainability Reporting in the Port Sector. IIIEE Master thesis.
  • Merk, O., 2014. Shipping emissions in ports. ITF-OECD, Discussion paper 2014-20
  • Notteboom, T. and Lam, J., 2018. The greening of terminal concessions in seaports. Sustainability, 10(9), 3318.
  • Notteboom, T., Van der Lugt, L., Van Saase, N., Sel, S., Neyens, K., 2020, The role of seaports in Green Supply Chain Management: initiatives, attitudes and perspectives in Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea Port and Zeebrugge, Sustainability, 12, 1688
  • Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2018). Cruise Shipping and Green Ports: A Strategic Challenge. Ιn: Bergqvist R. and Monios J. (eds): Green Ports: Inland and Seaside Sustainable Transportation Strategies, 255-273, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Pavlic, B., Cepak, F., Sucic, B., Peckaj, M. and Kandus, B., 2014. Sustainable port infrastructure, practical implementation of the green port concept. Thermal Science, 18(3), 935.
  • Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Michail, A. and Darbra, R.M., 2015. Current status and trends of the environmental performance in European ports. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 57-66.
  • UNESCAP, 1992. Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Port Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA
  • Verhoeven, P., 2010. A review of port authority functions: towards a renaissance?. Maritime Policy & Management, 37(3), 247-270.
  • Wang, S. and Notteboom, T., 2015. The role of port authorities in the development of LNG bunkering facilities in North European ports. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 14(1), 61-92.