Downloaded from orbit.dtu.

dk on: sty 21, 2025

Shipping decarbonization and green ports

Psaraftis, Harilaos N.; Zis, Thalis

Published in:
Maritime Transport Research

Link to article, DOI:

10.1016/j.martra.2022.100068

Publication date:
2022

Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link back to DTU Orbit

Citation (APA):
Psaraftis, H. N., & Zis, T. (2022). Shipping decarbonization and green ports. Maritime Transport Research, 3,
Article 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2022.100068

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright
owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
 You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
 You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
 Maritime Transport Research 3 (2022) 100068

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Maritime Transport Research

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/maritime-transport-research

Shipping decarbonization and green ports

The “Initial IMO Strategy” was adopted in the 72nd session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 72) of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) in April 2018. It has set, among other things, ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from ships, and purports to express a strong political will to phase them out as soon as possible. The most ambitious of
these targets is to reduce GHG emissions by 2050 at least 50% vis-à-vis 2008 levels, and there is also an intermediate target to reduce
CO2 emissions per transport work by 2030 at least 40%, again vis-à-vis 2008 levels (IMO, 2018). In the period after MEPC 72, the focus
of the IMO discussion has been on the formulation and eventual adoption of the short-term measures, that is, measures that are to be
agreed upon and implemented by 2023. In fact, MEPC 76, held in June 2021, and after a rather difficult discussion, adopted such a
short-term measure. MEPC 77 (November 2021) saw the initiation of the discussion on mid-term and long-term measures, which
include, among others, market based measures (MBMs) and alternative fuels. The discussion continued at MEPC 78 (June 2022) and is
expected to continue at future meetings of MEPC.
In parallel, and in the context of the European Green Deal that was adopted in 2019, in July 2021 the European Commission (EC)
unveiled its long-awaited “Fit for 55” scheme, a package of proposals to make the EU’s climate, energy, land use, transport and
taxation policies fit for reducing net GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. For shipping, this package
stipulates the inclusion of shipping into the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) (EU, 2021a), and includes the FuelEU Maritime
initiative, that aims to stimulate the uptake of sustainable maritime fuels and zero-emission technologies (EU, 2021b).
Ports can play a critical role in the decarbonization process, both in terms of reducing in-port GHG emissions (on shore power
supply), and in terms of contributing to the reduction of at-sea GHG emissions, by making wider use of practices such as virtual arrival.
Further, ports can help reduce GHG emissions in other modes if they contribute to shifting traffic from road to sea. Ports are getting
more engaged in the IMO process and this is expected to be continued in the future.
In this MARTRA special issue on shipping decarbonization and green ports, seven papers have been accepted after a peer-review
process. These papers look at the subject of the special issue from various perspectives and examine specific topics connected to this
subject.
The first paper (Foretich et al., 2022), aims to aid stakeholders involved in decision making and research related to the transition to
alternative fuels. To do so, a scoping study was conducted with the goal of outlining the barriers, uncertainties, and possibilities in the
short and long term for the transition. Increasingly stringent environmental standards and heightened regulatory focus on maritime
decarbonization are driving infrastructural and technical development for alternative fuels and mixtures, engine concepts, and
operating practices. However, the transition to alternative fuels is found highly complex and requires both a global outlook that spans
diverse stakeholder demographics and coordination with multiple actors across the value chain.
The second paper (Tseng and Pilchner, 2022) investigates the carbon reduction potential of the Kra canal, a potential future canal
across the Kra isthmus in Thailand which would reduce sailing distances between Far East and Europe. The paper finds that not only
will the canal not reduce emissions, but construction of the canal and of hub ports and their activities (potentially including oil
refining) will adversely impact pollutant emissions as well. However, the authors argue that when technology becomes far greener, and
countries work together with a focus on decarbonization, then the canal does indeed offer significant potential for decarbonizing the
shipping industry.
The third paper (Ashrafi et al., 2022) develops a comprehensive and integrated set of sustainability criteria that are relevant for
evaluating alternative marine fuels. An overview of different alternative marine fuel pathways is provided, and the current challenges
associated with adopting alternative marine fuels are assessed. As many as 18 sustainability criteria are developed, and are identified
through the academic and trade literature and validated through a multi-stakeholder participatory approach (based on the input from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2022.100068

Available online 3 August 2022

2666-822X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
H.N. Psaraftis and T. Zis Maritime Transport Research 3 (2022) 100068

70 maritime experts), for a systematic and consistent evaluation of marine fuels. The paper evaluates maritime stakeholder per­
spectives on the importance of sustainability criteria and provides a discussion of key policy implications and areas for future studies.
The fourth paper (Hessevik, 2022) is a qualitative multiple case study of three Norwegian offshore shipping companies and an­
alyzes the drivers that shape the companies’ strategies to reduce GHG emissions, with particular focus on how the strategies are
impacted by membership in green shipping networks. The paper finds that the main drivers have been initiatives by internal key
persons, participation in voluntary programs, mandatory regulations, and customer demand. The analysis shows no major shifts in
strategy after joining a green shipping network; however, it does show that network membership may impact the way shipping
companies work with emissions reduction.
The fifth paper (Lindstad et al., 2022) focuses on potential energy reductions through building more slender bulk vessels in
combination with wind assisted propulsion (WASP). The results indicate that fuel consumption and hence GHG emissions can be
reduced by up to 40% on an operational basis (Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator- EEOI) and 30% when shipbuilding is included
(lifecycle assessment- LCA), when operated at an average speed of 10 knots with sail routing, i.e., the vessel operates in ocean areas
with good wind conditions and the voyage route is optimized to get the most out of the wind.
The sixth paper (Lagouvardou and Psaraftis, 2022) studies the impacts of the inclusion of the maritime sector in the EU Emissions
Trading System (ETS). The paper investigates the risk of container lines replacing transshipment hubs in the European Economic Area
(EEA) with nearby non-EEA competitors, with Piraeus vs Izmir and Algeciras vs Tanger Med as case studies. The results show that a
non-EEA hub can become attractive for carbon prices well below 25 EUR per metric ton of CO2. Further, in all cases, the hub switch
results in a rise in overall carbon emissions which amplifies the risk of carbon leakage.
Last but not least, the seventh paper (Cammin et al., 2022) reviews the emissions reporting of the top 49 container ports in the
world, and observes that less than half of their sample ports provide public information on their emissions. The authors then propose a
classification scheme with different assessment criteria, and interestingly make connections between report availability and the press
freedom index of the associated country hosting the port. The proposed classification scheme can be a useful tool when comparing
different ports among their peers, and their willingness to share information on their environmental performance.
We hope that the reader of this special issue will find the above papers of interest. Perhaps more important, we hope that the
shipping industry will make progress and take the necessary bold moves to steer the industry in a clear path towards reaching the
targets that have been set.

Declaration of Competing Interest

We declare no conflict of interest in publishing this article.

References

Ashrafi, M., Lister, J., Gillen, D, 2022. Toward a harmonization of sustainability criteria for alternative marine fuels. Maritime Transp. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
martra.2022.100052.
Cammin, P., Brüssau, K., Voß, S., 2022. Classifying maritime port emissions reporting. Maritime Transp. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2022.100066.
EU, 2021a. In: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC Establishing a System for Greenhouse Gas
Emission Allowance Trading Within the Union, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 Concerning the Establishment and Operation of a Market Stability Reserve for the Union
Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme and Regulation (EU) 2015/757, Brussels, 14.07.2021.
EU, 2021b. In: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Renewable and Low-Carbon Fuels in Maritime Transport and
Amending Directive 2009/16/EC, Brussels, 14.07.2021.
Foretich, A., Zaimes, G.G., Hawkins, T.R., Newes, E, 2022. Challenges and opportunities for alternative fuels in the maritime sector. Maritime Transp. Res. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.martra.2021.100033.
Hessevik, A., 2022. Green shipping networks as drivers of decarbonization in offshore shipping companies. Maritime Transp. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
martra.2022.100053.
IMO, 2018. Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions From Ships, 13 April 2018. International Maritime Organization (IMO), London, UK. http://www.
imo.org/en/OurWork/Documents/Resolution%20MEPC.304%2872%29%20on%20Initial%20IMO%20Strategy%20on%20reduction%20of%20GHG%
20emissions%20from%20ships.pdf.
Lagouvardou, S., Psaraftis, H.N., 2022. Implications of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) on European container routes: a carbon leakage case study. Maritime
Transp. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2022.100059.
Lindstad, E., Stokke, T., Alteskjær, A., Borgen, H., Sandaas, I., 2022. Ship of the future – a slender dry-bulker with wind assisted propulsion. Maritime Transp. Res.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2022.100055.
Tseng, P-H., Pilcher, N., 2022. Estimating the emissions potential of marine transportation using the Kra Canal. Maritime Transp. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
martra.2021.100041.

Harilaos N. Psaraftisa,*, Thalis Zisb

a
Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
b
Department of Commerce, Finance and Shipping, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H.N. Psaraftis).