Shipping Emissions in Ports

20

Discussion Paper 2014 • 20
Olaf Merk

International Transport Forum, Paris, FranceShipping Emissions in Ports

Discussion Paper No. 2014-20

Olaf MERKInternational Transport Forum, Paris, France

December 2014

THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT FORUM
The International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with
54 member countries. It acts as a strategic think-tank, with the objective of helping shape
the transport policy agenda on a global level and ensuring that it contributes to economic
growth, environmental protection, social inclusion and the preservation of human life andwell-being. The International Transport Forum organises an annual summit of Ministers
along with leading representatives from industry, civil society and academia.
The International Transport Forum was created under a Declaration issued by the Councilof Ministers of the ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) at its Ministerial
Session in May 2006 under the legal authority of the Protocol of the ECMT, signed in
Brussels on 17 October 1953, and legal instruments of the OECD.
The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, People’s Republic of China,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova,
Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, RussianFederation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine,
United Kingdom and United States.
The International Transport Forum’s Research Centre gathers statistics and conducts
co-operative research programmes addressing all modes of transport. Its findings arewidely disseminated and support policymaking in Member countries as well as contributing
to the annual summit.
Discussion Papers
The International Transport Forum’s Discussion Paper Series makes economic research,commissioned or carried out at its Research Centre, available to researchers andpractitioners. The aim is to contribute to the understanding of the transport sector and toprovide inputs to transport policy design.
ITF Discussion Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the ITF orof its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of theauthors.
Discussion Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) andare published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the ITF works.
Comments on Discussion Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to: International Transport
Forum/OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.
For further information on the Discussion Papers and other JTRC activities, please email:itf.contact@oecd.org
The Discussion Papers can be downloaded from:www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/jtrcpapers.html
The International Transport Forum’s website is at: www.internationaltransportforum.org
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory,
to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 4
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 8
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 11i) Shore power facilities ...................................................................................... 13ii) Emission control areas ................................................................................... 14iii) Other fuel switch programmes ........................................................................ 15
4. DATASET ........................................................................................................ 16
5. RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 17
5.1 Shipping emissions in ports in 2011 ............................................................... 17
5.2 Estimated shipping emissions in ports in 2050 ................................................. 24
6. POLICY IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................................... 26
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 30
TABLES
1.
Overview of studies on global shipping emissions ........................................... 6
2.
Emission inventories of ports ....................................................................... 8
3.
Academic studies on shipping emissions in ports ............................................ 94.
Shipping emissions as share of total emissions in port-city ............................ 10
5.
Auxiliary Engine Emission Factors (g/kW-hr) ................................................ 13
6.
Shore power facilities in ports in 2011 ........................................................ 14
7.
Emission control areas in force ................................................................... 15
8.
Allowed sulphur emissions inside and outside ECAs ...................................... 15
9.
Voluntary Fuel switch programmes in ports in 2011 ...................................... 16
10.
Estimated shipping emissions in ports (2011) .............................................. 17
11.
Ports with the largest absolute emissions .................................................... 20
12.
Ports with the lowest relative emissions ...................................................... 20
FIGURES1.
Ship types and their shares in emissions, port calls and port time (2011) ........ 18
2.
Shipping emissions, port calls and port time per continent (2011) .................. 19
3.
of CO2 emissions and ship calls ................................................................. 21
4.
Distribution of SOx emissions and ship calls ................................................. 22
5.
Size distribution of CO2 emissions in 100 most active ports ........................... 22
6.
Size distribution of SOx emissions in 100 most active ports ........................... 23
7.
External costs of shipping emissions in top 50 OECD ports ............................ 24
8.
Increase in shipping emissions in ports 2011-2050 ....................................... 25
9.
Shares of emissions and port calls, 2011 and 2050 ....................................... 25

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 20143

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Shipping emissions in ports are substantial, accounting for 18 million tonnes of CO2
emissions, 0.4 million tonnes of NOx, 0.2 million of SOx and 0.03 million tonnes of PM10 in
2011. Around 85% of emissions come from containerships and tankers. Containerships
have short port stays, but high emissions during these stays.
Most of CO2 emissions in ports from shipping are in Asia and Europe (58%), but thisshare is low compared to their share of port calls (70%). European ports have much lessemissions of SOx (5%) and PM (7%) than their share of port calls (22%), which can be
explained by the EU regulation to use low sulphur fuels at berth.
The ports with the largest absolute emission levels due to shipping are Singapore, Hong
Kong (China), Tianjin (China) and Port Klang (Malaysia). The distribution of shipping
emissions in ports is skewed: the ten ports with largest emissions represent 19% of total
CO2 emissions in ports and 22% of SOx emissions.
The port with the lowest relative CO2 emissions (emissions per ship call) is Kitakyushu(Japan); the port of Kyllini (Greece) has the lowest SOx emissions. Other ports with low
relative emissions come from Japan, Greece, UK, US and Sweden.
Shipping emissions have considerable external costs in ports: almost EUR 12 billion peryear in the 50 largest ports in the OECD for NOx, SOx and PM emissions, the emissions
most directly relevant to local populations. Approximately 230 million people are directly
exposed to the emissions in the top 100 world ports in terms of shipping emissions.
Most shipping emissions in ports (CH4, CO, CO2 and NOx) are estimated to grow fourfold
up to 2050. This would bring CO2-emissions from ships in ports to approximately 70
million tonnes in 2050 and NOx-emissions up to 1.3 million tonnes. Asia and Africa will
see the sharpest increases in emissions, due to strong port traffic growth and limited
mitigation measures.
In order to reduce these projected emissions, strong policy responses will be needed.
This could take the form of global regulation such as more stringent rules on sulphur
content of ship fuel (such as the 0.5% sulphur cap already agreed by the IMO), or more
emission control areas than the four that are currently in place (which would extend the
0.1% sulphur requirements to more areas). In addition, shipping could be included inmarket-based mechanisms for climate change mitigation.
A lot could also be gained by policy initiatives of ports themselves. Various ports havedeveloped infrastructure, regulation and incentives that mitigate shipping emissions in
ports. These instruments would need wider application in order for ship emissions in
ports to be significantly reduced.

4

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

1. INTRODUCTION

Shipping could – in one way - be considered a relatively clean transport mode. This isparticularly the case if one takes the angle of emissions per tonne-kilometre. Typicalranges of CO2 efficiencies of ships are between 0 and 60 grams per tonne-kilometre, thisrange is 20-120 for rail transport and 80-180 for road transport (IMO 2009). There isconsiderable variety between vessel types and CO2 efficiency generally increases withvessel size; e.g. CO2 emissions per tonne-km (in grams per year) for a container feeder
ship (with capacity up to 500 TEU) were 31.6, three times higher than the emissions for
Post Panamax container ships, with a capacity larger than 4,400 TEU (Psaraftis andKontovas, 2008). This difference is even larger for dry bulk ships, with a difference ofmore than a factor 10 between the smallest vessels (up to 5000 dwt) and capesize
vessels (> 120,000 dwt).
At the same time, the air emissions from shipping are considerable. Depending on themethodology, different studies have estimated CO2 emissions from shipping to be around
2-3% of total global emissions and shares that are much higher for some of the non-GHG
emissions: in the range of 5-10% for SOx emissions and 17-31% for NOx emissions(Table 1). A solid body of research exist on shipping emissions in particular parts of theworld (e.g. Europe) that confirm the reliability of these shares of shipping emissions (e.g.
Cofala et al. 2007).
In comparison with other transport modes, shipping emissions are also substantial.
Whereas CO2 emissions of shipping might be approximately a fifth of those of roadtransport, NOx and PM emissions are almost on a par, and SOx emissions of shipping aresubstantially higher than those of road transport by a factor of 1.6 to 2.7 (ICCT, 2007).
According to Eyring et al. (2003) international shipping produces about 9.2 more NOx
emissions than aviation, approximately 80 times more SOx emissions and around 1200
times more particulate matter than aviation, due to the high sulphur content in ship fuel.
These emissions have increased at a large pace over the last decades and are expected
to increase in the future. Eyring et al. (2003) show that main shipping emissions (CO2,SOx, NOx and PM) grew with a factor of approximately 4 over the period 1950-2001,
faster than the increase of the number of ships over that period, which tripled. Shipping
emissions are projected to increase over the coming decades. E.g. the IMO assumed in2014 that shipping-related carbon dioxide emissions would increase with a factor two to
three up till 2050 (IMO, 2014).
Although most of these emissions take place at sea, the most directly noticeable part ofshipping emissions takes place in port areas and port-cities. It is here that shipping
emissions have the most direct health impacts. NO2 and CO-emissions in ports have been
linked to bronchitic symptoms, whereas exposure to SO2-emissions is associated withrespiratory issues and premature births. Data from the Los Angeles County Health
Survey reveal that Long Beach communities in close proximity to the Port of Los Angeles
experience higher rates (2.9 percentage points on average) of asthma, coronary heartdisease and depression, compared to other communities in Los Angeles (Human Impact
Partners, 2010). Additionally, the California Air Resources Board attributed 3 700

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

5

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

premature deaths per year to ports and the shipment of goods (Sharma, 2006). On a
global scale, calculations suggest that shipping-related PM emissions are responsible forapproximately 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths annually, with mostdeaths occurring near coastlines in Europe, East Asia and South Asia (Corbett, 2007).
Table 1. Overview of studies on global shipping emissions

CO2

SOx

NOx

PM10

Estimation(mln tonnes)
949
1050
944
695
813
912
501
419
10
15
14
12
13
6.8
16.5
17
25
22
24.3
21.4
22.6
12
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.6
0.9

Year
2012
2007
2007
2006
2001
2001
2000
1996
2012
2007
2005
2001
2001
2000
2005
2012
2007
2005
2001
2001
2000
2012
2007
2001
2001
2000

Share of total
emissions
2.7%
3.3%
3%
3%
2%
1.5%
10%
9%
9%
5%
27%
29%
31%
17%
-

SourceIMO 2014
IMO 2009
Psaraftis & Kontovas 2009
Paxian et al. 2010
Eyring et al. 2005
Corbett & Koehler 2003
Endresen et al. 2003
IMO 2000
IMO 2014
IMO 2009
ICCT 2007
Eyring et al. 2005
Corbett & Koehler 2003
Endresen et al. 2003
Cofala et al. 2007
IMO 2014
IMO 2009
ICCT 2007
Cofala et al. 2007
Eyring et al. 2005
Corbett & Koehler 2003
Endresen et al. 2003
IMO 2014
IMO 2009
Cofala et al. 2007
Eyring et al. 2005
Corbett & Koehler 2003
Endresen et al. 2003

Source: own data collection

However, relatively little is known about ship emissions in ports. The literature review
below (section 2) identifies the main studies in this respect, which in most cases are casestudies of one port. What is missing is a comprehensive overview of shipping emissions
in ports, using a uniform definition and methodology, so that emissions in different ports
can be compared with each other. This paper wants to fill this gap, by providing thiscomprehensive overview of shipping emissions in ports. It considers the following air
emissions: CH4, CO, CO2, NOx, PM10, PM2,5 and SOx. The calculation of shipping emissions
in ports makes use of a database of Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit on vessel
movements in 2011, containing information on turnaround times of ships in ports acrossthe world and ship characteristics, which allows for a bottom-up estimation of ship
emissions during port calls. In these calculations, various policy measures implemented
in ports to mitigate air emissions have been taken into account, such as the EU
regulation to use low sulphur fuel at berth, shore power and various fuel switch
programmes. The analysis has been made for different ship types, including

6

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

containerships, bulk carriers, tankers and Roll on/Roll off- (Ro/Ro-) ships, carrying avariety of cargo categories. This calculation has been aggregated into emissions per port
and per country in 2011. Projections have been made towards 2050, based on the ITF
Freight projection model. These projections have been made per country.

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 20147

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a limited number of studies on global shipping emissions which containestimations on the in-port emissions, that is ship emissions in ports. The two examples ofthese studies are Entec (2002) and Dalsoren et al (2008). The Entec-study (2002)
estimates emissions from ships associated with movements between ports in European
countries; as they assign ship emissions to 50 km by 50 km grid squares the ship-related
emissions in port areas are made visible. The paper of Dalsøren et al. (2008) uses anapproximation of port time to calculate the in-port shipping emissions, but does not givedetails on individual ports, except for Singapore. Although these studies certainly havetheir merits with regards to calculation of ship emissions in ports, they both suffer from
relatively inexact data or assumptions on the time that ships spent in a port. The Entec
study uses port time data based on a questionnaire survey of ports; and although theDalsøren et al. paper is more accurate in that it takes actual time in ports, it cannot bevery precise because the dataset measures port time in days and not in hours, let alone
minutes.
Ports also increasingly measure emissions in port areas themselves via emission
inventories (Table 2), but it is not always easy to separate the effects of shipping, port
operations, hinterland transport and industrial development on the port site.
Table 2. Emission inventories of ports
Port

Los AngelesLong Beach
SeattleNew York
New Jersey
Oakland
VancouverShanghai

Gothenburg

8-

Main indicators
Port-related GHG emissions (electric wharf cranes, building electricity, building naturalgas, port employee vehicles, expanded GHG inventory)
Diesel particulate matter (DPM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), SOx, CO2e emissions by source
category: Ocean-going vessels (OGV), harbour craft (HC), cargo-handling equipment(CHE), heavy-duty vehicles (HDV), rail locomotives (RL).
Containerised cargo volume trend
Port DPM, NOx, SOx, CO2e emissions trend
Port-related emissions (PM10, PM2.5, DPM, NOx, SOx, carbon monoxide (CO), HC) by
category: OGV, HC, CHE, RL, HDV.
Port-related GHG emissions (CO2E, CO2, N2O, CH4) by category: OGV, HC, CHE, RL,
HDV.
Total airshed emissions (NOx, VOC, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, DPM, CO2e) by source
category: OGV, harbour vessels, RL, CHE, HDV, fleet vehicles
GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) by the category “Port Commerce”(commercial marine vessels, CHE, RL, HDV, buildings, landfill, fleet vehicles)Port commerce emission per TEU handled
Total Criteria Air Pollutant (CAP) emission (NOx, NO2, PM)
Particulate Matter (PM, including diesel), NOx, SO2, Reactive Organic Gas (RO), and CO
emissions by source category: ships, HC, CHE, RL, trucks.
Common Air Contaminants (CACs): NOx, SOx, CO, VOCs, PM10, PM2.5, NH3, GHGs – CO2,
CH4, N2O by source group (administration, CHE, on road, rail).
Air pollutant emissions (NOx, SO2, PM, VOC, CO) of ships (ships of international shippinglines, ships registered at ports and managed by local maritime authorities, ships
travelling along the coast, hotelling, internal rivers).
GHG emissions by:*Direct emissions: operational vessels, operational vehicles, heating buildings (by fuelusage), fire equipment*Energy indirect emissions: electricity usage, direct heating*Other indirect emissions: business flights gallons per annum, business travel by car

Since

2001

2002

2006
2005
2005
2006

2010

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Barcelona
Hamburg
Houston
Melbourne
Helsinkigallons per annum, terminals, vessels at the quay/ traffic area, loading of gasoline,
leakage of pipelines, carpool
Air emissions at Darsena Sud and Port Vell: SO2, H2S, NO2, C6H6, PM10.
Direct CO2 emissions
Indirect CO2 emissions
CO2 emissions by equipment type: straddle carriers, OGVs, container/ rail gantry
cranes, reefer containers, storage cranes
Maritime related emissions (NOx, VOC, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO2) by source category:
OGV, heavy-duty diesel-fuelled vehicles, CHE RL, harbour vessels
CO2 emissions by activity: commercial vessels, cargo handling & Tenants, rail, road
Nitrogen dioxide concentrations, monthly average
Sulphur dioxide concentrations, monthly average
Vessel waste waters received by Port of Helsinki
Vessel waste waters pumped into sewage systems in Helsinki

2004
2011
2007
2011
2010

Source: Own data collection based on information provided by port authorities.

In addition, there is a considerable amount of case studies of ports and port-cities that
calculate the shipping-related emissions on the area. These studies apply a variety ofdifferent methodologies and definitions, as can be illustrated by Table 3 below, theoutcomes of these studies are difficult to compare with each other (Mueller et al. 2011).
Main differences in method are between calculations based on fuel consumption andactivity based; the last type of studies takes into account the activity of the ship (such as
the hours spent cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling), whereas the first approach is
looking at fuel accounts of ships to estimate emissions. The focus of the estimations
differs with respect to geographical demarcations (only port area, or also territorial
waters), with respect to the ships included (only ocean-going vessels, or also port vessels(such as tugs) and inland river vessels), and with respect to other port activities
included, such as other transport modes within the port (port trucks and locomotives)and cargo handling equipment, such as cranes and other equipment.
For this paper, we prepared a database with the main findings of these studies, modified
in such a way that it allows for comparison. For this purpose, we took only the shipping
emissions in ports into account for ocean going vessels at berth in hotelling andmanoeuvring mode. We did not include other vessels, nor equipment, nor port trucks andlocomotives.
Table 3. Academic studies on shipping emissions in ports
Port
Hong Kong (China)
Hong Kong (China)
Shanghai (China)
Yangshan (China)
Busan (Korea)
Busan (Korea)
Incheon (Korea)
Kaohsiung (Tapei)
Kaohsiung (Tapei)
Klaipeda (Lithuania)
Taranto (Italy)
Ravenna (Italy)
Venice, Piombino (Italy)
Venice (Italy)
Brindisi (Italy)
Ambarli (Turkey)
Izmir (Turkey)
Barcelona (Spain)
Piraeus (Greece)

MethodActivity based (AIS)
Activity based (AIS)
Activity based
Activity-based (AIS)
Activity based
Activity based
Activity based
Activity based
Cargo capacity, activity
time
Activity based (LMIU)
Air quality measurement
Fuel consumption
Fuel consumption
Air quality measurement
Activity based
Activity based
Activity based
Fuel based & activity based

Emissions of:
OGVs in territorial waters
OGVs in territorial waters
OGV and inland barges
Vessels in port area
Vessels in port area
Vessels, equipment, port trucks, trains
Vessels, equipment, port trucks, trains
Vessels and trucks in port area
Merchant vessels

SourceYau et al. 2012
Ng et al. 2013
Yang et al. 2007
Song 2014
Song & Shon 2014
Shin & Cheong 2011
Han et al. 2011
Berechman & Tseng 2012
Liu et al. 2014

Marine ships
Shipping, industry and urban traffic
Vessels in port area
Marine ships in port area
Vessels in port area
Vessels and port equipment
Vessels in port area
Vessels in port area
Vessels, electricity, heating, cargohandling, vehicles, trucks, waste
Vessels in port area

Abrutyte et al. 2014
Gariazzo et al. 2007
Lucialli et al. 2007
Trozzi et al. 1996
Contini et al. 2011
Donateo et al. 2014
Deniz & Kilic 2009
Saraçoglu et al. 2013
Villalba&Gemechu 2011

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

Tzanattos 2010a9

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Victoria, BC (Canada)
Göteborg (Sweden)
Copenhagen (Denmark)
Mumbai (India)
Aberdeen (UK)
13 main Spanish ports

Air quality measurement
Air quality measurement
Air quality measurement
Activity based
Air quality survey
Activity based

Cruise ships
Ships entering the inner part of port
Vessels in ports
OGVs in port area
Ships and trucks in the port area
Vessels manoeuvring and hotelling

Rotterdam (Netherlands)

Fuel consumption

Ships at berth

Poplawski et al. 2011
Isakson et al. 2001
Saxe & Larsen 2004
Joseph et al. 2009
Marr et al. 2007
Castells Sanabra et al.
2014
Hulskotte & Denier van
der Gon, 2010

Source: Own data collection.

The largest part of emissions in ports is generally from shipping activity; this can beconcluded from this collection of studies on emissions in ports. Between 70% to 100% ofemissions in ports in developed countries can be attributed to shipping; trucks andlocomotives represent up one fifth, whereas emissions from equipment rarely exceed
15%. The picture is different for ports in developing countries where regulations on truck
fuels are less strict and where a larger share of the total emssions in ports is taken up by
trucks and locomotives. E.g. in the port of Mumbai, the NOx emissions from port trucks
are almost 20% higher than those from ships; and PM10 emissions from trucks are 26
times higher than from ships (Joseph et al. 2009).
Shipping emissions in ports can represent a substantial share of total emissions in the
port-city. Much depends on the size of the port, the size of the city and the character ofthe city, such as industrialisation rate. In some large port-cities, such as Hong Kong and
Los Angeles/Long Beach, the share of SO2 emissions can reach half of the total emissions
in the city; for NOx and particulate matter emission levels that represent up to a fifth of
total urban emission are not rare (Table 4).
Table 4. Shipping emissions as share of total emissions in port-city
Port
Hong Kong
Shanghai
Los Angeles/Long Beach
Rotterdam
Kaohsiung
Hong Kong
Taranto
Izmir
VeniceBrindisi
Los Angeles/Long Beach
MelilaAlgeciras

SO2
54%
7%
45%
4-10%
11%
7%
10%
-

PM
10-15%
16%
1%
1-8%
1%
1-9%
2-4%
3-7%

NOx
33%
10%
9%
13-25%
17%
3-17%
8%
8%
-

SourceCivic Exchange 2009
Hong et al. 2013
Starcrest 2011
Merk 2013
Liu et al. 2014
Yau et al. 2012
Gariazzo et al 2007
Saraçoglu et al. 2013
Contini et al. 2010
Di Sabatino et al. 2012
Agrawal et al. 2009
Viana et al. 2009
Pandolfi et al. 2011

Source: Own data collection.

The approach in this paper is to provide a comparative overview of shipping emissions in
ports. This makes it possible to compare the different emissions in port-cities and go
beyond the incidental case studies whose values are difficult to compare to each other. At
the same time, it also refines the literature on global shipping emissions in ports by using
a more precise dataset on time spent in ports.

10

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

3. METHODOLOGY

Several methodologies have been used to estimate emissions from shipping, which canbasically be summarized in four models, depending on whether emission evaluation is
top-down or bottom up, and whether the geographical characterisation of emissions is
top-down or bottom-up (Miola and Ciuffo, 2011):


In a full top-down approach, total emissions are calculated without considering thevessel characteristics and are after the calculation geographically located andassigned to the different ships. The first studies on ship emissions took thisapproach and used international marine fuel usage statistics to estimate ship
emissions, but results from this approach were later considered to be unreliable.

In the second approach, a full bottom up approach, air pollutants emitted by aship in a specific position are calculated; aggregating these estimates over timeand over the fleet gives an estimation of the total emissions. This approach can beconsidered much more reliable, but the data required for such an approach have
only recently come available, so for the moment there is a limited amount ofstudies using this approach. As a result, a considerable amount of studies takeapproaches that are more hybrid.



There is a model that is bottom up in the evaluations of total emissions and top
down in their geographical characterisation. In this approach, the aggregation of
the emissions produced by all the ships gives an estimate of the total emissions;the emissions are then geographically characterised based on assumptions, e.g.
ship activities or single geographic cells. A fairly recent approach is to use
Automatic Identification System (AIS) data to refine the maritime data.

The fourth approach is top down in the evaluation of total emissions plus bottom
up in the geographic characterisation. In this approach the global activity carriedout within a single maritime route or a single geographic cell is evaluated.
Emissions from individual cells are aggregated to calculate total emissions andassumptions are made in order to assign total emissions to the different ships.

Our approach here is to use a bottom up-approach with respect to both shipcharacteristics (horsepower of the engines) and geographical characterisation, that is:
the actual time spent in ports (in hours and minutes) by vessels. Following Joseph et al.
(2009), the following equation is used to estimate shipping-related emissions at ports:
E = P*LF*EF*T
Where:
E
emissions in units of pollutantPmaximum power output of auxiliary engine in kW
LF
load factor for auxiliary engines, as a fraction of maximum installed power
capacityEFemission factor (pollutant specific) in mass emitted per work output of theauxiliary engine in manoeuvring and hotelling mode, g/kWh andTtime in manoeuvring and hotelling mode in hours

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201411

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

The principle behind this equation is to apply emission factors to activity rates, as
generally the case when estimating emissions. The activity rate of the individual vessels
in our database is estimated using rules of thumb indicated and explained below. Ships
use auxiliary power whilst being at berth. The maximum power of auxiliary engines in a
vessel is estimated based on auxiliary engine power ratios and an estimation of a vessel’s
main engine horsepower as a function of dead weight tonnage.
We have made calculations for four different ship categories:Container ships (fully cellular containerships).
Tankers (including crude oil tankers, chemical tankers, combined tankers andproduct tankers).
Bulk carriers.
Roll on/Roll off- (Ro/Ro)-ships.

These ship types include the large majority of commercial vessels used to transport
freight. We did not include general cargo ships. We only concentrate on cargo, so did notinclude passenger ships either.
The auxiliary to main engine power ratio is assumed to be:

0.220 for container vessels;
0.211 for tankers;
0.222 for bulk carriers;0.191 for Ro/Ro-ships.

The estimation of main engine horsepower for different vessels is assumed to follow theequations based on EPA (2000):

(0.80*dwt -/- 749.4) for container vessels;(0.1083*dwt + 6579) for tankers;(0.0985*dwt + 6726) for bulk carriers;(0.288*dwt + 3046) for Ro/Ro-ships.

The total deadweight tonnage of each vessel in the database is known. The load factor
for auxiliary engines in manoeuvring and hotelling modes is based on Starcrest (2004)
and Starcrest (2007) and considered to be:





12

18% for container vessels;
26% for tankers;
10% for bulk carriers;
26% for RoRo-ships

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

The emission factors for auxiliary engines during transit, manoeuvring and hotelling1
depend on the type of fuel used (CARB, 2008):
Table 5. Auxiliary Engine Emission Factors (g/kW-hr)
Fuel
Marine Distillate (0.1% S)
Marine Distillate (0.5% S)
Heavy Fuel Oil

CH4
0.09
0.09
0.09

CO
1.10
1.10
1.10

CO2
690
690
722

NOx
13.9
13.9
14.7

PM10
0.25
0.38
1.50

PM2,5
0.35
0.35
1.46

SOx
0.40
2.10
11.10

Source: California Air Resources Board (2008)

The values that have been calculated in this way have been corrected for the effects ofpolicies to mitigate air emissions of shipping in ports, in particular: i) shore power
facilities in ports; ii) emission control areas (ECAs) and iii) other fuel switch programmes(either mandatory or voluntary).
i) Shore power facilities
Shore power facilities in ports allow ships to shut off their auxiliary engine and use thepower of the grid in the port. Ships that use shore power minimize their emissions – andare considered to be negligible during their stay in the port. We have collected
information on the availability of shore power facilities for different ship types in world
ports. On the basis of this dataset, we have corrected our calculations for the different
ship categories in these ports: containerships, Ro/Ro-ships, tankers and bulk carriers.
Whereas shore power facilities are relatively frequently available in container terminals
and Ro/Ro-terminals, this is not the case for tankers and bulk carriers. The port of Long
Beach is the only port that provides shore power facilities for tankers. 2
The shore power facilities are not available in all of the container- and Ro/Ro-terminals in
the ports below, so the correction of the calculated emission should only apply for the
traffic share that these terminals in the total container and Ro/Ro-traffic of the port.
Moreover, not all ships are equipped to be connected to shore power facilities, so wehave made corrections based on assumptions on how often these facilities are actuallyused. The estimations of traffic shares of the terminals and of assumed actual use of theshore power facilities are coming from the respective port authorities that we have asked
to provide us with this information.

1

The character of the dataset is such that for the vast majority of ports the time in port
denotes the arrival at or departure from the port jurisdiction. For the top 10 ports interms of port calls there is a complexity to size and variation vessels using that port, so
the times denote arrival at, or sailing from berth. For these largest ports an estimation
has been made for the emissions from manoeuvring, based on a literature study on theshares of hotelling and manoeuvring in the shipping emission in ports. In most studies it
is observed that hotelling presents 70-80% of the ship emissions in the largest world
ports such as Hong Kong, Shanghai and Kaohsiung (Song, 2014; Yau et al. 2012; Liu etal. 2014). For the ten ports with the largest number of calls it is thus assumed that
manoeuvring emissions represent 25% of the gross emissions from hotelling (Gross
emissions meaning here emissions without taking into account shore power facilities).

2

Shore power facilities for other ship categories such as cruise ships, ferries and river ships
are not included in this table

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201413

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Table 6. Shore power facilities in ports in 2011
Port

AntwerpPrince Rupert
Shanghai
ShekouLong Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Zeebrugge
Luebeck
Kemi
Osaka
Gothenburg
Trelleborg
TacomaLong BeachCountry

Belgium
Canada
China
China
USA
USA
USA
Belgium
Germany
FinlandJapan
SwedenSwedenUSA
RoRoShip typeContainers
Containers
Containers
Containers
Containers
Containers
Containers
RoRo
RoRo
RoRo
RoRo
RoRo
RoRo
RoRo
Tankers

Traffic share ofterminal(s) withshore power
n.a.
100%
100%
28%
n.a.
100%
100%
34%
8%
-

Frequency ofuse shore power
facilities
0%
(25%)
(25%)
(25%)
50%
(25%)
38%
45%
11%
55%
(25%)
40%
0%
100%
0%

Source: own data collection based on information provided by the port authorities
Note: The Port of Long Beach does not track data on shore power visits, but under the shore power regulation,
fleets must plug in 50% of their visits. The estimation of usage of container terminals at the port of Oakland are
based on statistics from January-July 2014. The percentages between brackets are assumptions, as the ports inquestion never responded to our inquiry.

ii) Emission control areas
The picture is further complicated by emission control areas (ECAs). These ECAs are sea
areas in which stricter controls are established to minimize airborne emissions from ships
as defined by Annex VI of the 1997 MARPOL Protocol which came into effect in May
2005.3 This Annex VI contains provisions for emission and fuel quality requirements
regarding SOx, PM and NOx, a global requirement and more stringent controls in theemission control areas. There are currently four ECAs: one for the Baltic Sea, for the
North Sea, the North American ECA covering most of the US and Canadian coast and the
US Caribbean ECA, including Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. In 2011, the year ofthe dataset on which the analysis is based, only the Baltic Sea ECA and the North Sea
ECA were in effect (Table 7); the other two ECAs have by now entered into force which
will be of relevance for the projections of shipping emissions in ports. The SO x andparticulate matter emissions allowed inside and outside ECAs are indicated in Table 8.
Although there is speculation about new ECA’s, we have not included these in our
projections. From 1st January 2016 more stringent NOx regulations will be in force in the
North American and US Caribbean ECAs: all new-built vessels from that date operating inthese ECAs should have Tier III engines, which have much lower maximum NOx
emissions (3.4 g/kWh at lowest speed). In our long-term projections, we have taken this
into account, assuming that the whole fleet in these ECAs will have been renewed by
2050, so that the relevant NOx emission factor for these ports in 2050 is 3.4 g/kWh in
hotelling mode.

3

14

A more stringent Annex VI was enforced with significantly tightened emission limits

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Table 7. Emission control areas in force
Emission control area
Baltic Sea
North Sea
North American
US Caribbean Sea

Limited compounds
SOx
SOx
SOx, NOx, PM
SOx, NOx, PM

Adopted26/09/1997
22/07/2005
26/03/2010
26/07/2011

In effect from19/05/2006
22/11/2007
01/08/2012
01/01/2014

Source: www.imo.org

Table 8. Allowed sulphur emissions inside and outside ECAs
Outside an ECA
4.50% prior to 1st January 2012
3.50% between 1st January 2012 and 2020
0.50% from 1st January 2020

Inside an ECA
1.50% prior to 1st July 2010
1.00% between 1st July 2010 and 1st January 2015
0.10% from 1st January 2015

Source: www.imo.orgiii) Other fuel switch programmes
An additional third element to take into account is the existence of other mandatory or
voluntary fuel switch programmes. An important regulation in that respect is the EU
Sulphur Directive that prescribes that ships at berth in EU ports need to use fuels with amaximum of 0.1% sulphur content, which is in place since January 2010. We take this
into account in our analysis by applying the emission factors related to Marine Distillate
0.1% S for all EU ports in our analysis, assuming that the regulation is fully applied.
Another piece of regulation covers the State of California. Its legislation requires the useof low sulphur fuel within 24 nautical miles of the California coast; the rules applied in2011 stipulated the use of Marine gas oil (DMA) at or below 1.5% sulphur, or Marine
diesel oil (DMB) at or below 0.5% sulphur (CARB, 2011). The maximum allowed sulphur
content has since been reduced to 0.1%.
Voluntary fuel switch programmes are applied in various ports and provide incentives toshipping lines to use low sulphur fuel (Table 9). These incentives are either in the form ofcompensations to shipping lines for the additional fuel costs due to their fuel switches, or
lower port dues and tariffs. Both the programmes in Seattle and Houston give
reimbursements to shipping lines based on the volume of low-sulphur fuel burned during
each port call. In contrast, the Green Port Programme in Singapore gives a 15%
reduction of port dues for vessels that switch to clean fuel (or use approved scrubbers orother abatement measures). These programmes usually take the form of collaboration
between the port administration and one or more shipping lines. E.g. the programme in
Houston is exclusively with the shipping line CMA*CGM, whereas the Fair Winds Charterin Hong Kong was with the main 17 shipping lines calling the port. A brief questionnaire
was sent to the relevant port authorities; the answers to this questionnaire were used to
identify the extent of coverage of these programmes (the share of ships of total shipsthat actually used low-sulphur fuel when they were in the port). These data were taken
into account when calculating the shipping emissions in these ports.

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201415

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Table 9. Voluntary Fuel switch programmes in ports in 2011
Port

Country

Programme

Hong Kong
SeattleVancouverSingapore
New York/New Jersey
HoustonChina
US
CanadaSingaporeUSUS

Fair Winds Charter
ABC Fuels
EcoAction Program
Green Port Program
OGV Low sulphur program
DERA Fuel Switch ProgramMax.
sulphurlevel:
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
1%
0.2%
0.2%

Coverage

19%
73%4
18%5
0.4%
(10%)
(10%)

Source: own data collection based on information provided by the port authorities. Numbers for Singapore
cover 2012. The percentages between brackets are assumptions, as the ports in question never responded toour inquiry.

Other green port policies have not been taken into account, because they do not have an
impact on air emissions in the port. E.g. there was no need to correct for the Vessel
Reduction Programme operational in the Port of Long Beach; even if reduced speed
decreases air emissions within the 20 nautical miles where the programme applies, it is
not relevant to the air emissions of ships at berth. There was no need either to correctfor differentiated port dues based on schemes such as the environmental ship index(ESI), that scores ships according to their environmental performance. The first reason isthat almost all ports that participated in the programme in 2011 were European ports(where the EU Sulphur directorate applied); the second reason is that the share of ships
with an ESI certification is marginal in comparison with the global ship fleet.

4. DATASET

The data used are vessel movements of ships world-wide, as collected by Lloyd’s
Maritime Intelligence Unit (LMIU) The dataset includes data per ship, theircharacteristics, their arrival and departure time in a port, and their next port of call. On
the basis of these raw data, we constructed a database with ship turnaround time pership per port, which can be aggregated in ship turnaround times per port. The main ship
categories included in the database are: container ships, Ro/Ro-ships, tankers and bulk
carriers. The database covers exclusively ocean-going vessels, so river barges, whichmake up a significant part of ship calls in some ports, are excluded from this analysis.
The dataset has a very high coverage of the world fleet: close to all vessels in the world
are covered by the Lloyd’s database.
For budgetary reasons we used a database that covers only May 2011. This month isconsidered to be a representative month by Lloyd’s Maritime Intelligence Unit. Our own
observations confirm this. We constructed a database with monthly port volumes of a4This percentage represents the share of total vessels in 2011 that used distillate fuelswith a maximum sulphur content of 0.5% for all hotelling auxiliary engine operations.

5This percentage represents the share of total vessels in 2011 that used distillate fuelswith a maximum sulphur content of 0.5% for all hotelling auxiliary engine operations

16

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

selection of world ports, which shows that the month of May is in most ports and in mostyears a month that is has neither consistently lower nor higher volumes than the othermonths.
Of the total port calls of 20 771 vessels (larger than 100 gt) a small number ofobservations were excluded because of missing arrival and departure data and someobservations are excluded because they were considered to be extreme values thatwould skew the results; these are the vessel calls with a stay in one port of more than 10
days. What resulted was a database with 100 693 port calls (in 874 ports), of which 93%
have precise arrival and departure time in hours and minutes.
For a large majority of ship calls, the precise turnaround time in the port is known. In
some cases less precise measurements (ship turnaround time in days, not in hours andminutes) was the only available information. For these missing values, it is assumed thatthe port time for vessels arriving and leaving the same day is 12 hours, leaving the next
day is equivalent to 36 hours, with a port stay of two days equivalent to 50 hours etc.
This was necessary for some ports with only a very limited set of precise timeobservations was available, so taking exclusively these and extrapolate these would risk
to be inaccurate.

5. RESULTS

5.1 Shipping emissions in ports in 2011
Shipping emissions in ports are substantial and accounted for 18 million tonnes of CO2
emissions, 0.4 million tonnes of NOX emissions, 0.2 million of SOx emissions and 0.03
million tonnes of PM10-emisions in 2011, as well as various other emissions (Table 1).
These shipping emissions in ports present on average approximately 2% of the total
shipping emissions, for the different emission types, as calculated in various studies
referenced in the Literature Review (section 2). This share is lower than the one found by
Dalsøren et al. (2008) who estimated that emissions due to ships’ activities around or in
ports account for five per cent of total emissions from shipping. This might be explainedby the fact that our study does not take shipping emissions from ships other than oceangoing vessels into account, such as inland barges.
Table 10. Estimated shipping emissions in ports (2011)

CO2
NOx
SOx
PM10
PM2,5
CO
CH4

Shipping emissions in ports(mln tonnes)
18.3
0.4
0.2
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.002

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201417

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Around 85% of these emissions come from containerships and tankers. This is partly
explained by their dominant presence in terms of port calls, around three quarters of all
calls. Both containerships and tankers have more emissions than could be expectedbased on the number of port calls. For tankers this can be explained by their relatively
long turnaround time in ports. However, this is not the case for containerships: their timein port is approximately 27% of the port time of vessels, whereas these represent 40%of the calls. So containerships have relatively short stays in ports, but have relatively
high emissions during these stays. The inverse is the case for bulk carriers: they havelong turnaround times, but have relatively fewer emissions during their stays in ports.
Also Roll-on/roll-off (Ro/Ro) -ships are relatively clean: representing 8% of port calls and
5% of port time, they only represent 2% of the total shipping emissions in ports (Figure
1).
Figure 1. Ship types and their shares in emissions, port calls and port time(2011)

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

Most of the shipping emissions in ports are concentrated in Asia and Europe, e.g. 58% of
the CO2-emissions. This is logical if one considers that most of world’s port activity is
taking place there: Asia and Europe represent 70% of total port calls. Both Asia andEurope have relatively time efficient ports, considering that their calculated time in a port
is only 62%, considerably less than their share of port calls. Moreover, European ports
have much less emissions of SOx (5% of world total), PM10 (7%) and PM2,5 (8%) thantheir share of port calls (22%) would suggest, which can be explained by the EU
regulation to use low sulphur fuels at berth. Also its share of CO2-emissions (19%) isrelatively low, due to port air emissions policies, such as shore power facilities andincentives for fuel switching. Ports with high emissions relative to their port traffic can befound in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and – to a slightly lesser extent – inNorth America (Figure 2).

18

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Figure 2. Shipping emissions, port calls and port time per continent (2011)

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

The ports with the largest absolute emission levels due to shipping are Singapore, Hong
Kong (China), Tianjin (China) and Port Klang (Malaysia). In all emission categories theport of Singapore shows highest emission levels, for the other ports their position isdifferent with respect to the different emission categories. The top 10 port rankings forCO2 emissions are similar to those of NOx; and the rankings of SOx and PM are similar
as well. This correlation also applies to the whole dataset: there is complete correlation(R2 is 1) between CO2 and NOx shipping emissions per ports, as well as for PM and SOx(R2 of 0.9 for the other relationships). The emission levels per port have been comparedwith the corrected emissions as calculated in the various studies referenced in theliterature review (section); depending on the emission types, the results show high tovery high correlations6. The list of ports with largest emissions is not very surprising:most of these ports belong to the largest ports in the world with the highest shipping
activity. The difference between the rankings with respect to CO2 emissions and SOx
emissions could be explained by policy, in particular the EU directive on low sulphur fuel.
The ten ports with largest emissions represent almost a fifth of the total shipping
emissions in ports: 19% for CO2 emissions and 22% for SOx emissions. This illustrates
the highly skewed nature of shipping emissions in ports. In line with this: the 50 ports
with largest emissions have 37% of the CO2 and 44% of the total SOx emissions related
to shipping.

6

R2 scores of 0.5 up to 0.9 depending on the emission types.

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

19

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Table 11. Ports with the largest absolute emissions
Top 10 ports (CO2emissions)
1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. Rotterdam
4. Port Klang
5. Tianjin
6. Shanghai
7. Fujairah
8. Busan
9. Kaohsiung
10. Antwerp
Total Top 10

Share of
total
5.9%
2.2%
2.0%
1.9%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
19.0%

Top 10 ports (SOxemissions)
1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. Port Klang
4. Tianjin
5. Shanghai
6. Fujairah
7. Busan
8. Kaohsiung
9. Ulsan
10. Beilun
Total Top 10

Share of
total
6.5%
2.3%
2.2%
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
1.7%
1.6%
1.0%
0.9%
22.3%

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

The ports with the lowest relative emissions come from Japan, Greece, UK, US and
Sweden. These are the shipping emissions per ship call in each port. The port with thelowest relative CO2 emissions is Kitakyushu (Japan); the port of Kyllini (Greece) has thelowest SOx emissions. As with the absolute rankings, the rankings with respect to CO2
and NOx are similar, as well as the ones for PM and SOx. The ranking is dominated byports specialised in Ro/Ro-traffic, with Ro/Ro-vessels having relatively low emission
levels compared to other ship types. The difference between the rankings with respect to
CO2 emissions and SOx emissions could be explained by the EU directive on low sulphur
fuel at berth.
Table 12. Ports with the lowest relative emissions
Ports with lowest CO2
emissions per ship call
1. Kitakyushu
2. Imabari
3. Kyllini
4. Guernsey
5. Annapolis
6. Grand Cayman
7. Sundsvall
8. Troon
9. Trelleborg
10. Heysham

CountryJapan
Japan
GreeceUnited Kingdom
USA
Cayman Islands
SwedenUnited Kingdom
SwedenUnited Kingdom

Port with lowest SOx
emissions per ship call
1. Kyllini
2. Guernsey
3. Sundsvall
4. Troon
5. Trelleborg
6. Heysham
7. Marstal
8. Jersey
9. Gourock
10. Naxos

Country
GreeceUnited Kingdom
SwedenUnited Kingdom
SwedenUnited Kingdom
Denmark
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
GreeceSource: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

The absolute levels of shipping emissions in ports can to a large extent be explained byport activity: the ports with more ship calls generally have higher levels of shipping
emissions. This is particularly the case for CO2 (Figure 3) and NOx, with a correlation R2
of 0.86 for both emissions. This correlation is lower for SOx emissions (Figure 4); policies
aimed at reducing these emissions in the port have to some extent managed to‘decouple’ emissions from port activity. This can also be illustrated by the differences insize distribution of the different shipping emissions: whereas CO2 emissions to some

20

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

extent correspond to the size-rule distribution (Figure 5), this is much less the case forSOx emissions (Figure 6).
Figure 3. Distribution of CO2 emissions and ship calls

CO2 emissions (tonnes per year)

1.00E+12

1.00E+09

R² = 0.8588
1.00E+06
10

100

1000

10000

Ship calls (May 2011)

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit
Note: The dots in the figure represent ports.

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201421

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Figure 4. Distribution of SOx emissions and ship calls

SOx emissions (tonnes per year)

1.00E+10

1.00E+07

R² = 0.7314
1.00E+04

10

100

1000

10000

Ship calls (May 2011)

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit
Note: The dots in the figure represent ports.

Figure 5. Size distribution of CO2 emissions in 100 most active ports

CO2 emissions (tonnes per year)

1.2E+12
R² = 0.6117
1E+12
8E+11
6E+11
4E+11
2E+11
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Port rank

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

22

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Figure 6. Size distribution of SOx emissions in 100 most active ports

SOx emissions (tonnes per year)

1.8E+10

R² = 0.2461

1.6E+10
1.4E+10
1.2E+10
1E+10
8E+09
6E+09
4E+09
2E+09
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Port rank

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

Shipping emissions in ports have large impacts on the population of their cities:
approximately 230 million people are directly exposed to the emissions in the top 100
world ports in terms of shipping emissions. Around 40 million people are directly exposedto the ten ports with the largest SOx emissions, which concentrate 22% of the total
shipping-related SOx emissions in ports.
Shipping emissions have considerable external costs in ports: almost EUR 12 billion peryear in the 50 largest ports in the OECD for NOx, SOx and PM emissions (Figure 7),
based on conservative assumptions. Our calculations follow the approaches in various
studies to calculate the external costs of shipping emissions in specific port-cities(McArthur and Osland, 2013; Castells Sanabra et al. 2014). In these studies, like in our
calculation, local impact calculation factors are used for a standard city with a populationof 100,000 people that are scaled linearly to the respective populations, in our case to
the cities or towns with the 50 largest OECD ports. The impact calculation factors used
are EUR 33,000 of external costs per ton of PM2,5 emitted, EUR 6,000 for SO2 and EUR
4,200 for NOx, based on Holland and Watkiss (2002). Our calculations are conservative,
because these calculation factors are on the lower bound of the factors applied in otherstudies, such as Holland et al. 2005.7

7Moreover, in our calculations the external costs were not adjusted for inflation.

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201423

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Figure 7. External costs of shipping emissions in top 50 OECD ports

External costs in 2011 (billion
euros)
5
4
3
2
1
0
Nox

SOx

PM

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

5.2 Estimated shipping emissions in ports in 2050
Most shipping emissions in ports will grow fourfold up to 2050. This is the case for CH 4,
CO, CO2 and NOx-emissions. This would bring CO2-emissions from ships in ports toapproximately 70 million tonnes in 2050 and NOx-emissions up to 1.3 million tonnes. The
level of PM10 and PM2,5-emissions from ships in ports remains at the level of 2011
emissions and SOx emissions decline slightly compared to the 2011 level (Figure 8). The
growth in most shipping emissions is driven by growing demand for certain commodities
and goods fuelled by growth of population, economy and trade. The projections are
based on the ITF freight model that predicts the flows of 18 different cargo types
between 226 places in 84 different countries. These growth rates for cargo types havebeen translated into growth projections of port calls of the corresponding ship types ineach country. In this calculation we assume that ship turnaround times remain at asimilar level and that all international obligations that have an impact on ship emissions
will be implemented in the timelines currently foreseen, e.g. the reduction of the
maximum allowed sulphur content in fuels to 0.5% by 2020, and to 0.1% by 2015 inemission control areas.

24

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Figure 8. Increase in shipping emissions in ports 2011-2050
450%
400%
350%
300%
250%

2011

200%

2050

150%
100%
50%
0%
CH4

CO

CO2

Nox

PM10

PM2,5

Sox

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

Asia and Africa will be subject the sharpest increases in emissions, due to their projected
strong port traffic growth to 2050 and the lack of regional mitigation measures (such as
ECAs). Asian port traffic is projected to reach half of the global total in 2050, whichcorresponds to the share of projected shipping emissions in Asian ports. European andNorth American ports show relative declines of emissions, due to relatively slower traffic
growth and to stricter regulatory measures, such as emission control areas. For example,
due to the emission control areas and the 0.1% maximally allowed sulphur content inthese areas from 2015, SOx-emissions in European and North European ports areprojected to be 5% of the total SOx-emissions in ports, whereas their total port traffic
would account for 24% in 2050 (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Shares of emissions and port calls, 2011 and 2050
100%
90%
80%
Oceania70%

North America

60%

Middle East

50%
40%

Latin America

30%

Europe

20%

Asia

10%

Africa0%
CO2 (2011)

CO2 (2050)

Sox (2011)

Sox (2050)

Port calls(2011)

Port calls(2050)

Source: Author’s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201425

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

6. POLICY IMPLICATIONSIn order to reduce these projected emissions, strong abatement measures will beneeded. These could be classified in four different categories (DNV, 2010):
i)

Alternative fuels or power sources. Alternative fuels include gas-fuelled
engines (such as LNG and LPG) and biofuels. Alternative energy sources topower ships could be solar power, wind and nuclear energy.

ii) Operational measures. These measures cover operation of the ship itself (hullcondition, propeller condition, trim/draft optimisation) and routing measures,such as voyage execution and weather routing (avoiding navigation in areas
with bad weather conditions).
iii) Technical measures. These cover the machinery (main and auxiliary engines)
and measures under water (propeller and hull).
iv) Structural changes. These changes include port efficiency, vessel speed
reduction (through fleet increase) and cold ironing (using shore power whileat berth).
These four different categories of abatement measures determine to a large extent theroom for policy responses. Significant progress in terms of global policy-making has been
made with respect to operational and technical measures. The IMO amended the MARPOL
Annex VI in 2011, adding a new chapter on “Regulations on Energy Efficiency for Ships”.
It includes two measures that came into force in early 2013 and apply to all vessels over
400 GT (gross tonnage): the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for all new ship
constructions, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for existingships. The EEDI phases in progressively stringent criteria into the building standards fordifferent types and sizes of ships. Energy efficiency levels are measured in CO 2 emissions
per capacity mile, and are designed to bear upon all production components of a given
ship. The SEEMP constitutes a mechanism for benchmarking and improving operable
ships, mainly through the Energy Efficiency Operator Indicator (EEOI) instrument. Under
the SEEMP, owners and operators are periodically brought to review and upgrade theirenergy performance, focusing on such measures as engine tuning and monitoring,propeller upgrades, trim/draft improvement and enhanced hull coating.
An IMO-commissioned study has claimed that, under high uptake scenarios (30%), the
EEDI and SEEMP should reduce global emissions below the status quo scenario by anaverage of 330 million tonnes (40%) annually by 2030, and increase savings in the
shipping industry by USD 310 billion annually (Lloyd’s Register and DNV, 2011).
Nevertheless, the model suggests that MARPOL measures will not be sufficient to bringabout an overall reduction in emissions relative to 2010 levels. In each of the uptake
scenarios tested, projected growth in trade will overwhelm any emissions reductions
achieved through the EEDI and SEEMP, even if the upward trend will be reduced
compared to status quo scenarios. As becomes clear from our calculation, the projected
increase of air emissions from shipping is particularly high for CO2, CO, CH4 and NOx.

26

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Consensus on global market-based mechanisms – deemed necessary to reduce emissions
to levels low enough to impact the pace of climate change – has been elusive within the
IMO. Shipping could be included in global emissions trading schemes and climate financeschemes. At least 10 different market-based measures (MBMs) for GHG emissions
reductions have been submitted by member-states to the IMO. However, for the
moment, opinion has been highly divided within the IMO about the legitimate use of
MBMs to bring down GHG emissions from shipping. Part of the difficulty encountered
within the IMO discussions has been that any global GHG reduction plan established by
the IMO might engage nations who currently have no GHG reduction targets under the
Kyoto Protocol to accept these for the fleet of vessels under their registry. This, manynations fear, might establish an unwelcome precedent for the overall climate change
negotiations being held under the auspices of the UNFCCC and in which the principle of“common but differentiated responsibilities” has been accepted (Crist, 2009).
Nevertheless, some sort of compromise should be found, possibly by designing a system
in which IMO principles can be upheld, while providing some compensatory measures anddevelopment support for some of the developing nations that are large flag states.
The levels of SOx and particulate matter are not expected to increase up to 2050, due toregulations that will come in force in the coming years. These measures should evidently
be implemented and the implementation should be controlled, so that the emission
reductions will take place. Substantial decreases of SO x and PM would be possible byextending the boundaries of existing ECAs and by introducing new ECAs. Extension ofboundaries of existing ECAs could be considered in cases where certain ports outside
ECAs could attract more traffic because of their cost advantage for shipping lines (e.g. in
the case of Liverpool compared to other UK ports). New ECAs have been discussed for
the Pearl River Delta (Merk and Li, 2013) and the Mediterranean Sea.
A lot could also be gained by policy initiatives of ports themselves. Various ports havedeveloped infrastructure, regulation and incentives that mitigate shipping emissions in
ports. Many of these instruments could be considered the fourth category of abatement
measure indicated above: structural measures. An example of infrastructure that reduces
ship emissions are shore power facilities that allow ports to shut of their engines whenberthing in a port. Especially in Europe and North America, an increasing number of ports
provide shore power to ships that come into their quays, following the lead of
Gothenburg. Instead of using their diesel-fuelled auxiliary engines, these ships use power
generated by the local grid, which significantly diminishes diesel- and other fuel-derived
emissions while in port. Shore power not only requires an on-shore power connection,
but also ships that are able to connect to this power source. For this reason, shore poweris most feasible for point-to-point connections, such as ferries, container lines and Ro/Roships.
Several European ports have begun promoting the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as aship fuel. Bremenports, which is responsible for the management and development ofBremen and Bremerhaven, has decided to actively support the future use of LNG. In
addition to the construction of an LNG depot in 2011, one of its main strategies is to use
LNG itself, through the creation of ship services powered by LNG in 2012. It is hoped theuse of LNG by the service fleet will set a precedent for other users in the port, andBremenports has a policy of providing technical expertise on these matters to facilitate
the popularisation of such technologies. The ports of Rotterdam and Gothenburg alreadyrun incentive schemes that subsidise the use of LNG by ships. Both ports are also
investing in LNG facilities. Gothenburg and Rotterdam have already begun co-operating
on standardisation efforts to ensure that LNG is handled in a uniform manner and to
speed up the development and adoption of LNG as a fuel (Merk, 2013).

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201427

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Port regulations have so far covered vessel speed reductions in proximity of the port andmandatory fuel switches. Incentives applied by ports include lower tariffs for ships thatuse cleaner fuels, are more energy efficient or reduce their speed when close to a port.
E.g., the Port of Long Beach, through its Vessel Speed Reduction Programme (VSR),
rewards ships that voluntarily lower their speeds within the harbour, through reduced
docking fees for vessels that remain within a 12-knot speed limit. The goal of the VSR isto reduce NOx emissions from ocean-going vessel by slowing their speeds as they
approach or depart the port, generally at 20 nautical miles (nm) from Point Fermin(OECD, 2011).
Various ports have introduced environmentally differentiated port dues, based on theenvironmental ship index (ESI). The effect of these incentives is for the moment fairly
small, as the number of vessels that qualify for reduced port dues is limited. As thenumber of ships integrated in the ESI is steadily rising, the prospective benefits will rise,
but the rebates have not so far been financed by a rise in dues for the non-ESI vessels,
which will have negative consequences for the budgets of the participating ports. So
future schemes would arguably not only have to reward clean ships, but also to penalise
dirty ships, as is the case in Sweden. This country has applied environmentallydifferentiated port dues since 1996, following an agreement between the Swedish
Maritime Administration, Ports of Sweden and the Swedish Ship-Owners Association to
reduce NOx and SO2 emissions from ships. This agreement has led to environmentallydifferentiated fairway and port dues.
Voluntary fuel switch programmes are applied in various ports and provide incentives toshipping lines to use low sulphur fuel. These incentives are either in the form ofcompensations to shipping lines for the additional fuel costs due to their fuel switches, or
lower port dues and tariffs. Both the programmes in Seattle and Houston give
reimbursements to shipping lines based on the volume of low-sulphur fuel burned during
each port call. In contrast, the Green Port Programme in Singapore gives a 15%
reduction of port dues for vessels that switch to clean fuel (or use approved scrubbers orother abatement measures). These programmes usually take the form of collaboration
between the port administration and one or more shipping lines. E.g. the programme in
Houston is exclusively with the shipping line CMA CGM, whereas the Fair Winds Charterin Hong Kong was with the main 17 shipping lines calling the port. An important port
regulation with respect to fuel switching is the EU Sulphur Directive that prescribes thatships at berth in EU ports need to use fuels with a maximum of 0.1% sulphur content,
which is in place since January 2010.
In various cases these instruments are combined or applied subsequently, e.g. when
incentive schemes facilitate a transition to stricter regulation (Box 1). Many of the policy
choices made will depend on the local situation, but the most convincing examples ofpolicy performance involve a coherent package of inter-related instruments. Mitigatingshipping emissions in ports requires the interplay of different levels of intervention,
ranging from the local on up. Given the nature of the shipping industry, someenvironmental impacts of shipping are best tackled at the global level. Self-regulation ofports can work, but in most cases, external pressure is needed. The policy instruments
mentioned above would need wider application in order for ship emissions in ports to be
reduced.

28

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Box 1. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan
The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) is a comprehensive strategy to reduce air
pollution emissions from port-related cargo movement. The two San Pedro Bay ports, the largest
seaport complex in North America, are also the single largest source of pollution in Southern California,
according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In 2005, the twin mega-ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach generated approximately 25% of the diesel pollution in the region(O’Brien, 2004). The CAAP aims to address the problem of the ports’ growing operations and theirincreasing environmental impact. Its goal was to dramatically reduce emissions and associated healthrisks for the region without upsetting the continuous port development. The plan was first approved in2006 and updated in 2010. Near-term plans through 2014 and long-term goals include reducing portrelated emissions by 59% for NOx, 93% for SOx and 77% for DPM by 2023 and meeting standards tolower the residential cancer risk in the port area from diesel particulates. Under the plan, the twin ports
have developed annual emission Inventories, which are made public, to track progress in achieving
CAAP standards. The CAAP uses a combination of regulations, fees, grants and incentives to the cargoindustry to promote cleaner technology and operational systems, such as the Clean Truck Program, theVessel Speed Reduction Program and the Alternative Maritime Power Program. To support thedevelopment and demonstration of clean-air technology, the ports have also jointly created aTechnology Advancement Program that has provided more than USD 9 million in funding to theindustry since 2007.
The latest analysis in 2011 indicates that the two ports have substantially reduced the key air
pollutants from port-related sources since 2005, including a 71% and a 75% reduction in airborne
diesel particulates, respectively. Several pillar programmes have significantly contributed to reducing
air pollution at the two ports, including the Clean Truck Program (CTP) and the Vessel Speed Reduction
Program (VSR).
The CAAP marks a milestone for the port industry in mitigating the environmental impact ofmaritime operations. The plan was a co-operative venture, and the two ports initiated the concept andbrought along industry stakeholders and agency leaders (Giuliano and Linder, 2011). The key factor inits success is the co-operation of port users, including terminal operators, truckers and shippers, as wellas the support of federal, state and local regulatory bodies and local communities (Mongelluzzo, 2012).
The ports were also under considerable social pressure. Community concern over the health risks ofport-related diesel emissions had grown after a series of air quality studies was published on thecorrelation between cancer and respiratory disease rates and proximity to freight-movement corridors.
Cargo volumes rose through 2004, in an expansion of capacity at the two ports, and public opposition,
including a series of lawsuits, made plans for expansion difficult if not impossible. Political pressure forincreased regulatory oversight also prompted the ports to respond to public dissatisfaction over air
quality. This ultimately led to the adoption of a comprehensive plan. The CAAP was portrayed as asolution to build the credibility of the ports to obtain agreements on future projects as they engaged all
the key stakeholders. One study describes the CAAP as “a response to the loss of social legitimacy andto social and regulatory pressures that were restricting the ability of the ports to expand” (Giuliano and
Linder, 2011). The two ports’ market influence also played a role in the mitigation efforts, since theirgateway location gave them more room to impose fees on the industry and generate the revenue to
implement environmental policies.
Source: Merk (2013), The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report, OECD, Paris

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

29

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Ship emissions in ports follow a highly skewed distribution pattern, with more than athird of the emissions occurring in only 50 ports. This points to the concentration of air
pollution in selected environmental hotspots, but also suggests that policy interventions
with respect to environmental externalities, such as on shore power supply, would be
most effective if focussed on these places. Although we did not find indications of
economies or diseconomies of scale with regards to relative emissions, there werecertainly geographical differences. The shipping-related emissions in Asian and European
ports are large in absolute terms, but small in relative terms: they represent 70% of total
port calls, but only 51-58% of shipping-related emissions. The explanation for this istheir favourable performance in time efficiency in Asia and Europe: shorter port times
mean relatively lower emissions. In contrast, the ports in North America, Africa andOceania have relatively high emissions. In the case of North American ports this iscaused by a much larger vessel capacity calling the port, which might be caused be therelatively underdeveloped short sea shipping market in the US. In the case of African
ports, the relatively high emissions are caused by unfavourable performance in time
efficiency: vessels have longer port stays than on other continents, so the container ship
emissions in port areas are larger. A relatively large literature on port efficiency has
generated recommendations on how to improve this. Considering that most of the largest
ports in the world are Asian or European ports, that is closer to the efficiency frontier, theopportunities of reducing global shipping emissions in ports by improving port efficiency
remains essential, but might actually have relatively limited impact.

REFERENCES

Abrutyte, E., et al. (2014), “Evaluation of NOx emission and dispersion from marine ships
in Klaipeda sea port”, Journal of Environmental Engineering and LandscapeManagement,
Agrawal, H. et al. (2009), “Primary Particulate Matter from Ocean-Going Engines in theSouthern California Air Basin”, Environmental Science & Technology, 43 (14), 53985402
Amato, F., et al. (2009), “Quantifying road dust resuspension in urban environment by
Multilinear Engine: A comparison with PMF2”, Atmospheric Environment, 43, 27702780
APICE (2013), Reducing atmospheric pollution in the Mediterranean port cities; The
results of the APICE project, Financed by ERDF
Berechman, J. and Tseng, P. (2012), “Estimating the environmental costs of port related
emissions: The case of Kaohsiung”, Transportation Research Part D, 17, 35-38
CARB (2008), “Emissions Estimation Methodology for Ocean-Going Vessels”, California
Air Resources Board, Planning and Technical Support Division, May 2008
Castells Sanabra, M. et al. (2014), “Manoeuvring and hotelling external costs: enough foralternative energy sources?”, Maritime Policy & Management, 41:1, 42-60

30

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Civic Exchange (2009), “Green Harbours II: Reducing Marine and Port-related Emissions
in the Pearl River Delta Region”, Civic Exchange, Hong Kong
Contini, D., et al. (2011), “The direct influence of ship traffic on atmospheric PM2.5, PM10
and PAH in Venice”, Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 2119-2129
Corbett, J., et al. (2007), “Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment”,
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 41 (24), pp 8512–8518
Crist, P. (2009), “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Potential from International
Shipping”, ITF Discussion Paper, No. 2009-11
Cullinane, K., Cullinane, S. (2013), “Atmospheric Emissions from Shipping: The Need forRegulation and Approaches to Compliance”, Transport Reviews, 33:4, 377-401
Dalsoren, S. et al. (2008), “Update on emissions and environmental impacts from theinternational fleet of ships; the contribution from major ship types and ports”,
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, 8, 18323-18384
De Meyer, P., Maes, F., Volckaert, A. (2008), “Emissions from international shipping in
the Belgian part of the North Sea and the Belgian seaports”, Atmospheric
Environment, 42, 196-206
Deniz, C. and Kilic, A. (2009), “Estimation and Assessment of Shipping Emissions in the
Region of Ambarli Port, Turkey”, Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy,
29:1, 107-115
Donateo, A. et al. (2014), “Contribution of harbour activities and ship traffic to PM 2.5,
particle number concentrations and PAHs in a port city of the Mediterranean Sea(Italy)”, Environ Sci Pollut Res, 21: 9415-9429
DNV (2010), “Pathways to low carbon shipping; Abatement potential towards 2030”, Den
Norske Veritat (DNV), Oslo, Norway
Entec (2002), “Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements
between ports in the European Community, Report for European Commission”,
Entec UK Limited, Cheshire, England
EPA (2000), “Analysis of commercial marine vessels emissions and fuel consumptiondata”, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-R-00-002
Eyring, V. et al. (2005), “Emissions from international shipping: 1. The last 50 years”,
Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 110, DI17305, doi:10.1029/2004JD005619
Gariazzo, C., et al. (2007), “Application of a Lagrangian particle model to assess theimpact of harbour, industrial and urban activities on air quality in the Taranto area,
Italy”, Atmospheric Environment, 41, 6432-6444
Gibson, M. et al. (2013), “Identifying the sources driving observed PM2.5 temporalvariability over Halifax, Nova Scotia, during BORTAS-B”, Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics, 13, 7199-7213

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201431

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Giuliano, G. and A. Linder (2011), “Motivations for Voluntary Regulation: The Clean Air
Action Plan,” submitted for presentation at the 2012 TRB Annual Meeting, July,
http://docs.trb.org/prp/12-2628.pdf.
Han, S. et al (2011), “Estimation of Air Pollutant Emissions from Port-Related Sources in
the Port of Incheon”, Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment, 27:4,
460-471
Healy, R., et al. (2009), “Characterisation of single particles from in-port ship emissions”,
Atmospheric Environment, 43, 6408-6414
Holland, M. et al. (2005), “Damages per tonne emission of PM2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and
VOCs from each EU25 Member State (excluding Cyprus) and surrounding seas”,
AEA Technology plc, European Commission DG Environment, Brussels
Holland, M., Watkiss, P. (2002), “Benefits Table Database: Estimates of the MarginalExternal Costs of Air Pollution in Europe”. Created for the European Commission,
DG Environment, Brussels
Hong, Z. et al. (2013), “The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: The case of Shanghai– China”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/23, OECD Publishing,Paris
Hulskotte, J., Denier van der Gon, H. (2010), “Fuel consumption and associatedemissions from seagoing ships at berth derived from an on-board survey”,
Atmospheric Environment, 44:9, 1229-1236
Human Impact Partners. (2010). “Los Angeles and Long Beach Maritime Port HIA Scope.”
Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Working Draft.
May 17, 2010
ICF (2006), “Current methodologies and best practices in preparing port emission
inventories”, US EPA, Fairfax, Virginia
IMO (2009), “Second IMO GHG Study 2009”, International Maritime Organisation,
London
IMO (2014), “Third IMO GHG Study 2014”, International Maritime Organisation, London
Isakson, J., Persson, T., Selin Lindgren, E. (2001), “Identification and assessment of ship
emissions and their effects in the harbour of Göteborg, Sweden”, Atmospheric
Environment, 35, 3659-3666
Jonsson, A., Westerlund, J., Hallquist, M. (2011), “Size-resolved particle emission factors
for individual ships”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L13809
Joseph, J., Patil, R., Gupta, S. (2009), “Estimation of air pollutant emission loads fromconstruction and operational activities of a port and harbour in Mumbai, India”,
Environ Monit Assess, 159, 85-98
Liu, T. et al. (2014), “Sulfur Dioxide Emission Estimates from Merchant Vessels in a Port
Area and Related Control Strategies”, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14, 413421

32

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Lloyd's Register & DNV. (2011), Assessment of IMO Mandated Energy Efficiency
Measures for International Shipping: Estimated CO2 emissions reduction fromintroduction of mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures forships, Report Commissioned by IMO, IMO (London).
Lucialli, P. Ugolini, P., Pollini, E. (2007), “Harbour of Ravenna: The contribution ofharbour traffic to air quality”, Atmospheric Environment, 41, 6421-6431
Marr, I. et al. (2007), “An air quality survey and emissions inventory at Aberdeen
Harbour”, Atmospheric Environment, 41, 6421-6431
Matthias, V. et al. (2010), The contribution of ship emissions to air pollution in the North
Sea regions, Environmental Pollution, 158, 2241-2250
McArthur, D., Osland, L. (2013), “Ships in a city harbour: An economic valuation of
atmospheric emissions”, Transportation Research Part D, 21, 47-52
Merk, O. (2013), “The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report”, OECD,
Paris, France
Merk, O. and Li, J. (2013), “The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: the case of Hong
Kong, China”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/16, OECD, Paris,
FranceMiola, A. and Ciuffo, B. (2011), Estimating air emissions from ships: Meta-analysis ofmodelling approaches and available data sources, Atmospheric Environment, 45,
2242-2251
Mongelluzzo, B. (2012), “How California’s Ports Cleared the Air”, The Journal ofCommerce, January 23 2012.
Mueller, D., et al. (2011), “Ships, ports and particulate air pollution – an analysis ofrecent studies”, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 6:31
Ng, S. et al. (2013), “Policy change driven by an AIS-assisted marine emissions
inventory in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta”, Atmospheric Environment, 76,
102-112
O’Brien, T. (2004), “Quality of Life and Port Operations: Challenges, Successes and the
Future”, White Paper prepared for the Sixth Annual CITT State of the Trade andTransportation Industry Town Hall Meeting, August 30, CITT, Long Beach,
California, http://www.metrans.org/outreach/townhalls/citt_6th_thm.pdf.
OECD (2011), “Environmental Impacts of International Shipping: the role of ports”,
OECD Publishing, Paris
Pandolfi, M. et al. (2011), “Source apportionment of PM10 and PM2.5 at multiple sites inthe strait of Gibraltar by PMF: impact of shipping emissions”, Environ Sci Pollut Res,18, 260-269
Poplawski, K., et al. (2011), “Impact of cruise ship emissions in Victoria, BC, Canada”,
Atmospheric Environment, 45, 824-833

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201433

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Psaraftis, H., Kontovas, C. (2008), “Ship Emissions Study”, Prepared for Hellenic
Chamber of Shipping, May 2008, Greece
Sabatino, S. Di, et al. (nd), “Contribution of Emission Sources from Shipping in the Port
area of Brindisi, Italy”, unpublished paper
Saraçoglu, H., Deniz, C., Kiliç, A. (2013), “An Investigation on the Effects of Ship
Sourced Emissions in Izmir Port, Turkey”, The Scientific World Journal,
Saxe, H. and Larsen, T. (2004), “Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports”,
Atmospheric Environment, 38, 4057-4067
Sharma, Dinesh C. 2006. “Ports in a Storm.” Environmental Health Perspectives.
Environews Focus. Volume 114; Number 4. April 2006.
Shin, K., Cheong, J. (2011), “Estimating Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in the Port of Busan, S. Korea”, Asian Journal of Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 5-1, pp. 41-46
Song, S. (2014), “Ship emissions inventory, social cost and eco-efficiency in Shanghai
Yangshan port”, Atmospheric Environment, 82, 288-297
Song, S., Shon, Z. (2014), “Current and future emission estimates of exhaust gases andparticles from shipping at the largest port in Korea”, Environ Sci Pollut Res, 21:6612-6622
Starcrest Consulting (2004), “Port of Los Angeles baseline air emissions inventory,
prepared for the Port of Los Angeles”
Starcrest Consulting (2011), “Port of Los Angeles inventory of air emissions – 2010”,
Technical Report ADP#050520-525
Trozzi, C., Vaccaro, R., Nicolo, L. (1995), “Air pollutants emissions estimate frommaritime traffic in the Italian harbours of Venice and Piombino”, The Science of the
Total Environment, 169, 257-263
Tzannatos, E. (2010a), “Ship emissions and their externalities for the port of Piraeus –Greece”, Atmospheric Environment, 44, 400-407
Tzannatos, E. (2010b), “Ship emissions and their externalities for Greece”, Atmospheric
Environment, 44, 2194-2202
Tzannatos, E. (2011), “Ship generated exhaust emissions and their externalities for
Greece”, International Journal Ocean and Climate Systems, 2:1, 65-74
Viana, M. et al. (2009), “Chemical Tracers of Particulate Emissions form Commercial
Shipping”, Environmental Science & Technology, 43 (19), 7472-7477
Villalba, G and Gemechu, E. (2011), “Estimating GHG emissions of marine ports – thecase of Barcelona”, Energy Policy 39, 1363-1368
Yang, D. et al. (2007), “An Emission Inventory of Marine Vessels in Shanghai in 2003”,
Environmental Science & Technology, 41 (15), 5183-5190

34

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 2014

SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS

Yau, P. et al. (2012), “Estimation of exhaust emission from ocean-going vessels in HongKong”, Science of the Total Environment, 431, 299-306
Yau, P. et al. (2013), “Contribution of ship emissions to the fine particulate in thecommunity near an international port in Hong Kong”, Atmospheric Research, 124,
61-72

Olaf Merk — Discussion Paper 2014-20 — © OECD/ITF 201435

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
75775 Paris Cedex 16
itf.contact@oecd.org
www.internationaltransportforum.org