THE GREENING OF PORTS: A COMPARISON OF PORT

MANAGEMENT TOOLS USED BY LEADING PORTS IN

ASIA AND EUROPE

Jasmine Siu Lee Lama1 AND Theo Notteboomb

a
Division of Infrastructure Systems and Maritime Studies, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
b
ITMMA – University of Antwerp, Belgium and Antwerp Maritime Academy, Belgium

Abstract
From the policy and management perspective, this study aims to investigate the port
management tools that port/public authorities have at their disposal and then to analyze to
what extent the tools are used to enforce or encourage green port development at functional
activities of port operations and development. We conduct an exploratory and comparative
review based on two axes: on one hand the range of tools available to port authorities
(pricing, monitoring and measuring, market access control and environmental standard
regulation) and on the other hand the functional activities in ports (shipping traffic, cargo
handling and storage operations, intermodal connection, industrial activities and port
expansion). The situations in the leading ports in Asia and Europe, namely Singapore,
Shanghai, Antwerp and Rotterdam are studied and compared, whereby the policies’
effectiveness is discussed accordingly. Findings show that the ports are particularly mature
in exercising environmental standard regulations which reveals that the enforcement
approach is more prevalent. The most focused functional activity is shipping traffic which
reflects that the ports are driven by the International Maritime Organisation. The respective
port authorities in Antwerp and Rotterdam have a higher level of influence on devising
green port policy in comparison to the two Asian ports.

Keywords: green port, port management, port development, port policy, Asia, Europe

To cite this article:

Lam, J.S.L. and Notteboom, T. 2014. The greening of ports: a

comparison of port management tools used by leading ports in
Asia and Europe, Transport Reviews, Vol. 34(2), pp. 169-189.

DOI:10.1080/01441647.2014.891162.

1
Author for correspondence: Jasmine Siu Lee Lam, Nanyang Technological University, Block N1, 50
Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798; Email: sllam@ntu.edu.sg

1
1. INTRODUCTION

The past years have seen an increasing attention on the environmental impact of port
operations and development. As there is a high price associated to climate change and
global warming, the port industry is subject to closer scrutiny in terms of environmental
regulatory compliance. The focus on environmental issues is especially felt at the level of
vessel and cargo handling operations, industrial activities in ports, port planning and
extension initiatives and hinterland accessibility. Ports are also facing higher pressure from
the public in terms of performing their social responsibility. For example, when comparing
the survey results of 1996, 2004 and 2009 of ESPO/Ecoports (2010), it is evident that ports
must demonstrate an ever higher level of environmental performance in order to ensure
community support. Ports need to comply with ever higher regulatory and societal
requirements in the fields of environmental protection which can have an impact on the
further space/room for the ports to grow, not only in terms of hectares, but also in terms of
the so-called environmental space. This challenges seaports to minimize emissions of
existing and future activities in the port areas and the wider logistics area. Environmental
aspects also play an increasing role in attracting trading partners and potential investors
(Lee and Lam, 2012). A port with a strong environmental record and a high level of
community support is likely to be favoured. As such, port management in light of green
port development is a topical issue which deserves much research work. However, the
literature to-date has yet to fulfill the much desired industry needs.
This study aims to contribute to existing literature by providing an exploratory and
comparative review of port management tools that port/public authorities have at their
disposal and then to analyze to what extent the tools are effectively used to enforce or
encourage green port development at various functional activities of port operations and
development. The analysis will cover a comprehensive scope of port management tools
including pricing, monitoring and measuring, market access control as well as
environmental standards. Efforts are especially devoted to study and compare the situations
in the leading ports in Asia and Europe, namely Singapore, Shanghai, Antwerp and
Rotterdam due to the high shipping traffic and cargo volume handled, and ongoing and
recent port extension projects, whereby the policies’ effectiveness is discussed accordingly.
These major ports are more comparable than small and regional ports and, given the
substantial amount of cargo and ships handled, would generate higher environmental
impacts, hence they are highly relevant for the research topic. The paper thus serves as one
of the first studies to compare the Asian and European perspective and attempts to link the
use of specific environmental management tools to local governance and regulatory
settings.
The paper is organised as follows. After reviewing the background about the
growing awareness on the environmental impact of port operations and development, an
overview on port management tools and policies with a focus on green concerns will be
given. Then the paper moves on to examine and compare the port management tools in the
four of the world’s leading ports as stated above. A detailed discussion on the research
findings, policy implications and recommendations for the ports in the study and in general
will then be presented. The last section summarises the paper’s contribution and suggests
future research directions.

2
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN PORTS

The past years have seen increasing concerns on the environmental impact of port
operations and development. One of the major environmental impacts generated by ports is
air pollution, particularly greenhouse gas (GHG) emission which leads to global warming
since GHG traps heat (Lashof and Ahuja, 1990). This in turn distorts the natural ecosystem.
There are also health effects impacting the residents of the local community surrounding
ports which include asthma, other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer
and premature mortality (Bailey and Solomon, 2004). Ships that call at ports are a major
source of air pollutants such as CO2, SO2, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, HC, CO and VOC. Coastal
passenger shipping, as opposed to cruise shipping, was found to be the dominate
contributor of emissions in the passenger port of Piraeus in Greece (Tzannatos, 2010). As
for Barcelona in Spain, the highest polluters are car carriers among all other ship types
(Villalba and Gemechu, 2011). In another empirical analysis taken on Taiwan (Berechman
and Tseng, 2012), tankers and container ships were found to be the first and second largest
groups of ships emitting such pollutants in Kaohsiung Port. Land side activities,
particularly cargo operations at terminals, form another source of airborne emission.
Emissions of dust from bulk cargo handling, electricity consumption, and gases from cargo
handling equipment and trucks adversely affect air quality (UN, 1992; Villalba and
Gemechu, 2011). To take a broader view, cargoes handled at ports have to be connected to
the hinterland and therefore generate GHG emissions due to inland transportation. Liao et
al. (2010) analysed the impact of using Taipei Port in Taiwan on the carbon dioxide
emissions CO2 of inland container transport. Via the activity-based method, the estimation
results showed that there are greater reductions in CO2 when transhipment routes are
changed from other major ports in Taiwan to Taipei.
Another major environmental concern is water pollution and the effects on marine
ecosystems. Ng and Song (2010) assessed the environmental impacts generated by routine
shipping operations on ports, and conducted an empirical analysis on Port of Rotterdam.
Water pollution comes from ballast water, fuel oil residue and waste disposal from ship
operations as well as cargo residue. There would be even more severe adversity and
immediate impact if there is an accident causing an oil spill. These marine pollutants are
harmful to natural habitats located around port waters which would upset marine and
coastal ecology, as well as lead to the damage and loss of coastal ecology and fishery
resources (UN, 1992). Furthermore, receiving ever larger vessels requires upgrading and
maintenance of the maritime access infrastructure. The need for navigation channel
deepening and widening works would lead to contaminated sludge from dredging. There
may also be a need to alter the sea floor and natural geographical feature causing disruptive
impact on marine ecosystems due to dredging and civil works (Peris-Mora et al., 2005).
Waste disposal from port operations, industrial activities, construction and
expansion projects causes another major category of environmental externality. This
includes all kinds of solid, liquid and hazardous wastes. Industrial wastes would be toxic so
should be handled with considerable care. Wastes from construction activities are mainly
spoils generated by dredging (Yap and Lam, 2013). Waste lubricant, oily mixtures, solid
waste (garbage), wastes from cargo operations, daily administration and buildings would
also create pollution. Disposal of these contaminated materials on land may cause

3
destruction of plants, leakage of contaminated materials, odour, unpleasant sight and other
nuisances to the local community. Disposal in water would cause problems identified in the
above paragraph. Hence improper waste control and treatment can be a great strain on the
natural environment surrounding the port area.
Ports are major sources of the above environmental impacts given the concentration
of a large number of industrial and logistics activities in port areas, and the strong reliance
of ports on freight mobility over land and via the sea (i.e. ships). However, the clustering of
activities in a port area can also exert strong environmental advantages. For example,
‘ecologies of scale’ (Rietkerk et al., 2002) are achieved in the large (petro)chemical
industries of ports such as Singapore, Rotterdam and Antwerp by which companies utilize
each others’ waste material or by-products such as heat. It would be far more difficult to
achieve this when the plants concerned would be spatially scattered. Next to potential
economies of scale, large port clusters can thus also benefit from ‘ecologies of scale’
advantages.
The increasing focus on the environmental impacts of ports is not only associated
with existing port, ship and hinterland transport operations. From an environmental
perspective, port development and extension should ensure sustainable development.
Hence, environmental sustainability of port projects has become as important as economic
and financial viability. This often demands a more systematic approach in which the
impacts of ports and port projects are placed within wider coastal management and
environmental policies.
The growing concern about environmental impacts of ports implies that port
authorities can no longer take broad public support for port operations and development for
granted. Resources such as land are becoming scarcer and environmental concerns
increasingly challenge the economic function of seaports. Without proper environmental
tools and policies in ports, there is an increased risk of having a clear imbalance between
the benefits and costs of ports for the local community. Such imbalances potentially form a
breeding ground for major socio-economic confrontations related to port development and
operations (Benacchio and Musso, 2001; Notteboom and Winkelmans, 2003; Osthorst and
Manz, 2012).

3. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND PORT MANAGEMENT TOOLS

Port authorities around the world are pursuing a greening of port management in view of
safeguarding their ‘license to operate’ and increasing their economic and environmental
competitiveness. Port policy charts a port’s strategy and development as well as regulates
port activities. The government plays an important role as a powerful institution
influencing the actions of organisations to improve environmental management (Clemens
and Douglas, 2006). But environmental policies and regulations may impose substantial
cost to the extent that such matter becomes a community responsibility rather than just an
industry concern (Bateman, 1996). Therefore, how to balance environmental quality and
economic feasibility is a key issue. Another challenge in setting environmental policies is
the existence of institutional barriers to the integration of such policies with transport and
health policies. The barriers include autonomy of government departments, weak
connections among the sectors and inefficient procedures in dealing with cross-sectoral

4
issues (Stead, 2008). Proper institutional arrangement and a legal framework set by the
government are needed for sustainable outcomes (Kassolis, 2007). It is not straightforward
to formulate an effective policy framework, and the environmental sector would benefit
from transnational communication and policy learning (Howlett and Joshi-Koop, 2011)
which supports the transnational approach taken by our study. Ports should take note of
these pointers in devising their green port management tools. The possible tools are
reviewed below.
Pricing strategies can be used to boost a port’s competitive position such as
lowering charges (port dues or terminal handling charges or both) in order to compete
against other ports. Ultimately the pricing scheme should correspond to market conditions
and to counter competition, stimulate market growth and improve profitability (Yap et al.,
2011). In view of the direct relationship between hinterland access and port performance,
port pricing should also take hinterland capacity into consideration. De Borger et al. (2008)
found that profit-maximising ports internalise hinterland congestion as far as it affects their
customers. Port pricing can promote the efficient use and enhance the utilisation rate of the
facilities. Another long existing approach is to impose marine pollution penalty (Li et al.,
2013). Started in recent years, pricing can also be used as an environmental incentive tool
in ports. A pioneer example is the Port of Long Beach which implemented the Green Flag
Speed Reduction Program. By slowing down, ships can reduce airborne emissions and
shipowners in return are granted a discount the following year as an incentive, hence the
scheme combines environmental protection with economic benefits (Port of Long Beach,
2009). However, since prices paid by shipping companies and other port users affect their
commercial behaviour and decisions, price regulation is more prone to spawn market
distortions than access regulation.
Access regulation is to control how terminal operators access the facilities they
need to compete in the market. It promotes competition among the operators and has lower
intervention costs than using price regulation (Defilippi and Flor, 2008). In relation to
market access regulation, a terminal concession or a grant by a government or port
authority to a (private) operator for providing terminal operation services has become a
popular governance tool in the port industry. The design of concession agreement, its
regulatory and tariff regimes, as well as the way the concession is awarded are structured to
conform to the priorities of public authorities (Notteboom, 2007). Ferrari and Basta (2009)
argued that concessions are beneficial to enhancing competition in and between ports only
if they are granted to the most efficient port operator. European Sea Ports Organisation
(EPSO) is in the process of producing a good practice guide which is primarily aimed to
help port authorities improve their contracting methods and instruments in order to gain
more value from a governance perspective (Notteboom et al., 2012).
Concession policy can also be used to direct port services in fulfilling
environmental requirements (Notteboom, 2007). For example, the Port of Rotterdam sets
sustainability as a key criterion in the assessment of concession competitive bidding. In the
request for proposals for the Maasvlakte 2 expansion project, candidate terminal operators
were asked to focus on minimising the share of road transport with the aim to achieve an
ecologically favourable modal split using higher proportion of barge and rail transport (De
Langen et al., 2012). ESPO/ITMMA survey conducted in 2008 and ESPO Fact Finding
Report survey conducted in 2011 show that concession contracts of European ports often
take the form of performance-based agreements to create incentives for terminal operator to

5
meet the objectives of the port authority. The most common clauses in the contracts contain
minimum throughput requirements, environmental performance and renewal and extension
details (Notteboom et al., 2012). Hence, environmental governance via the mechanism of
terminal concession agreements is already quite common in European ports. An example
on other port services besides terminal operations is the Clean Trucks Program adopted by
the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The ports authorize trucking firms to access the
port through offering a limited number of concessions that will be granted to those that can
meet certain criteria including deploying vehicles that meet the 2007 US Environmental
Protection Agency’s standard (Goodchild and Mohan, 2008).
Ports also increasingly implement environmental management system (EMS) which
is a systematic approach to manage a port’s environmental programs for pollution
prevention, protection and control (Florida and Davison, 2001). It in essence is a
documented process that describes a structure for the management of environmental impact
processes and continuous improvement (for example, environmental risk assessment and
management actions to address those risks). For instance, the Valencia Port Authority in
Spain commenced the ECOPORT project since 1997 and developed a system of indicators
in order to implement a sustainable environmental management for industrial harbours and
ports (ECOPORT Valencia, 2000). Peris-Mora et al. (2005)’s study proposed a set of
environmental indicators for sustainable port management to be used by any port authority.
They also applied the environmental indicators to the port of Valencia. Gupta et al. (2005),
with a case study on the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust in India, suggested that port and
harbour projects should have an environmental management plan which includes
information on the generation and treatment of solid waste, liquid and gaseous effluents,
details of safety measures around the project, and details of the safety organization
including key personnel. Monitoring is one of the important aspects in EMS. The UK ports
sector responded to environmental legislation with the focus on monitoring mechanism for
ports and harbours in maintaining their environmental sustainability. Biological indicators
such as presence/absence of individual marine species and abundance of dominant species
for monitoring purpose were suggested (Wooldridge et al., 1999). Also related to
monitoring, Darbra et al. (2009) studied 26 European ports’ requirements for
environmental information via interviews. The major environmental parameters that ports
required to be monitored were marine related issues, water quality, meteorological
parameters, turbidity and sediment processes. Indirect effects such as altered transport
patterns and increased energy use due to larger built environment should be taken into
account in strategic environmental assessment of transport infrastructure investment
(Jonsson and Johansson, 2006).
The above studies have led to a better understanding of ecological issues in ports
and port management policy with some relation to green port development. However,
academic research on green ports from the policy and management perspective is scarce.
Also, the few studies on environmental policy related to ports mainly provide a local
perspective and typically provide a fragmented discussion on environmental challenges to
ports. With regards to empirical investigation or case study, it is observed that prior studies
are mostly devoted to a local situation or at best regional focus, e.g. Darbra et al. (2009)’s
analysis on Europe. There are only very few studies on Asia which presents an urgent need
for investigation due to the tremendous growth of seaborne commodity trades handled via

6
ports and port development projects. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no
empirical comparative studies devoted to green port policy at an international scale.

4. CASE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

When it comes to sustainability, the ports considered in this study, i.e. Singapore, Shanghai,
Rotterdam and Antwerp, have recognized at various points in time the necessity to
carefully consider environmental issues in their strategic planning and behaviour, and to
communicate actively with the entire range of stakeholders. We will demonstrate in this
section that they have taken measures to show their environmental concerns and their
responsibility in taking care, and have started to implement the concept of sustainability.
While differences can be observed among the ports considered, port authorities had to go
through ‘learning by doing’ experiences in developing green policies and in dealing the
best they can with international and national environmental regulations and spatial planning
restrictions.
The effectiveness of a port on environmental issues depends largely on the various
green port policies and tools adopted by port/public authorities. Different ports may adopt
different policies considering the local regulatory, geographical, economic and political
background. Various policies and tools are classified into three main categories, namely 1)
pricing, 2) monitoring and measuring, and 3) market access control and environmental
standard regulation. Pricing control is further divided into penalty pricing and incentive
pricing. We propose an analysis based on two axes: on the one hand the range of tools
available to port/public authorities and on the other hand the functional activities in ports
(i.e. ranging from shipping traffic, cargo handling and storage operations, intermodal
connections, industrial activities and port expansion) to represent the logistics chain
perspective. In order to derive the patterns across the four ports, the policies are compared
according to various port functional activities. The analysis is firstly based on
comprehensive literature review, data and information collected from library and credible
internet sources, and secondly years of correspondence and interactions with the four ports
for first-hand information and insights. Triangulation of references offers the advantage of
higher data reliability and research validity (Eisenhardt, 2002). Table 1 shows a
comparison on the ports’ key data and status in order to provide a clear context of the case
analysis. The findings of green port tools are illustrated in table 2, then the interpretation
and implications are discussed below.

Insert tables 1 and 2

7
4.1 Pricing policy

Motivating or giving an incentive pricing to the good doers and punishing or giving a
penalty pricing to the wrong doers is viewed as an effective tool to promote environmental
awareness in transportation sectors (De Borger et al., 2004), including the port. Pricing
control is observed in all the four ports. They use penalty pricing as the ‘stick’ approach or
incentive pricing as ‘carrot’ or both approaches to reduce pollution and improve the
environmental performance of port users and developers. In terms of port’s functional
activities, pricing control is most commonly used in shipping traffic, followed by industrial
activities at ports. Voluntary schemes aimed at cleaner ships, e.g. by rewarding the use of
low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) are the most common. Ship operators typically embrace
voluntary schemes, particularly when the implementation and further refinement/updating
of such programs goes hand in hand with a proactive and constructive collaboration
between the maritime industry and the respective government agencies or port authorities.
Environmental-based pricing is not found in cargo handling and storage. This is probably
due to the fact that cargo operations are controlled by terminal operators and they are
service providers who should take the responsibility of protecting the port environment as a
pre-requisite. Thus market access control and other regulatory measures to be discussed
later are used instead.
In the area of shipping traffic, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Singapore are very active in
pricing control. Penalty pricing and incentive pricing are used simultaneously in these ports
to enhance effectiveness. Port of Rotterdam imposes a 10% surcharge to docking fees for
barge operators using fuel with sulphur levels near the upper limit (Port of Rotterdam,
2011). A rewarding scheme is also in place. Together with the port authorities of
Amsterdam, Le Havre, Hamburg and Bremen and in cooperation with International
Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp were among
the pioneers participating in the Environmental Ship Index (ESI). Shipping companies can
register their ships for this index on a website superintended by IAPH and designed by the
World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI). On the basis of the data entered, such as fuel
consumption and emissions, each ship is given a score from 0 to 100 (0 point implies
compliant with rules, 100 points when zero-emissions and carbon management). The ports
themselves decide what advantages to offer participating ships. The ESI is a clear example
of incentive pricing at the level of port dues. Since July 1, 2011, seagoing ships with a
score of 31 or more will be a granted a discount of 10% on tonnage dues in Antwerp. The
Antwerp Port Authority guarantees this discount for a period of at least three years, so
offering continuity for shipping companies that invest in improving the ESI score of their
ships (Port of Antwerp, 2012). Rotterdam started to implement the new financial incentive
plan in January 2011. Also, clean seagoing ships which score 31 points or more on the ESI
will receive 10% discount on the GT section of their harbour dues in Rotterdam (Port of
Rotterdam, 2011). More ports are joining the voluntary ESI scheme program in view of
incentivizing behavioral change of ship operators. The database grew from 121 ships in
January 2011 to 2,247 ships in October 2013, while the number of participating companies
rose from 16 to 142 in the same period (WPCI, 2013). Still, the program is not entirely free
from critique. At the start only very few ships reached a score above the threshold.
Therefore, many operators saw the ESI program as a green marketing program of
individual port authorities with targets that are very hard to meet in practice. However, the

8
gradual implementation of IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI made that more and more shipping
companies are forced to take measures to ‘green’ their fleet. As a result, it has become
comparatively easier to reap benefits via the ESI program. In other words, the ESI becomes
a port-related cost saving bonus for ships which anyway need to become greener to comply
with IMO’s current and future rules and regulations.
In a similar manner, burning clean fuels with low sulphur content beyond
MARPOL requirements within Singapore can enjoy a 15% reduction on port dues payable
(MPA, 2011). Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore has earmarked S$100 million to
boost clean and green shipping in Singapore and aims to promote green port by financial
incentives (MPA, 2013). The so-called Green Port Program (GPP) is a voluntary program
aimed at offering ship operators a port due/light due incentive when reducing sulphur
content to below the 1% threshold. Quite a number of shipping companies are participating
in GPP to comply with green policy, to save cost and to keep friendly relations with the
incentive giver. Initially the program proposed a voluntary switch to LSFO for vessels
underway. However, this initiative was not well received by the maritime industry.
Therefore, a modification was carried through in July 2013 for a possibility of a voluntary
switch to low sulphur fuels at berth only.
The common and most established penalty pricing policy is imposing fines on
marine oil spills which is implemented by the four ports. This reflects the ports’ directive to
prevent the potential disastrous damage of oil spills on coastal and marine environment and
wildlife as discussed previously. Heavy penalties are indeed effective in deterring
environmental pollution (De Borger et al., 2004). Uniquely in Rotterdam, the port fines for
non-compliance with agreements on modal shift (Port of Rotterdam, 2011). The pricing
initiatives in Shanghai are mostly penalty schemes. By fining the wrong doers stated in
laws and regulations, Shanghai adopts the principle of letting the polluters pay for pollution.
Marine Environment Protection Law states clearly under what circumstances the polluter
should pay for what amount covering both port industrial activities and port expansion
(PRC, 2000). As for Antwerp, in addition to fines on marine oil spills, the port also
provides financial incentives for companies and concession-holders that carry out energy
audits (Port of Antwerp, 2010).

4.2 Monitoring and measuring

Ports are extremely vulnerable to unfounded claims of environmental damage and to

deflect such claims, ports need quantifiable and detailed information on the impacts of their
operations on the adjacent environment. Ports should communicate how environmental
impacts associated with port operations are being effectively managed. If a port starts a
dialogue with the local community only in response to a problem, negative perception by
the community can be the outcome. Examples of environmental reporting are
environmental impact assessment studies associated with port expansion, reports related to
dredging impacts and monitoring of natural resources such as wetland conditions and bird
population and migration.
By monitoring the air quality, water quality as well as policy development, the port
authority could keep track of the port’s environmental performance, subsequently
formulate or modify its targeted strategies and policies. While such tool is common in all
port activities, it is most often adopted in two functional areas: in shipping traffic to

9
monitor GHG emissions and in port expansion to monitor the design and construction
process as observed in all the four ports. Apart from these, monitoring could also cover
policy development as in Antwerp for intermodal connections (Port of Antwerp, 2012), or
stipulated in law given legal enforcement as in Shanghai (PRC, 2000), though not
commonly observed in all ports.
All four ports monitor their own carbon footprint (greenhouse gas emissions,
expressed in CO2-equivalent) and take it as a starting point where future measures could
bring the port closer to the “sustainable port”. Antwerp’s monitoring scheme is
comprehensive and extensive. It covers the port area as a whole and the inward and
outward logistics chain as the port authority intends to act as a “responsible householder”
to monitor the overall situation and will take corrective actions wherever possible (Port of
Antwerp 2010). Rotterdam’s monitoring scheme is geared towards the ambitious objective
for its own activities to be climate neutral by 2012 (Port of Rotterdam, 2008). Singapore
adopts a systematic footprint-monitoring project including three steps: determining
emission baseline year, collecting emission data and tracking emissions over time (Goh,
2010). As for Shanghai, monitoring the port’s carbon footprint is highlighted in the green
port guide information. However, we do not see very specific measures implemented yet
mainly due to the relatively recent commencement in 2012 (China ACC, 2011). Antwerp
and Rotterdam also take active initiatives in monitoring water quality. Rotterdam monitors
oxygen and nutrient concentrations (Port of Rotterdam, 2011) whereby such measure is not
seen in the other three ports.
Under the heading of monitoring and measuring policy, the Environmental
Management System (EMS) is worth mentioning. EMS serves as a documented system to
help organizations comply with environmental laws and prove their commitment to
improve environmental performance. It can provide an effective guideline for other ports
and can be regarded as a benchmark of environmental sustainability (Gudmundsson et al.,
2005). Antwerp, Rotterdam and Singapore adopted the ISO 14001 as the standard for their
EMS. Matters such as air quality, energy consumption, waste and transport have been
included in the EMS. The stages include monitor, measure, evaluate and record
performance, conduct audits and correct problems. European port authorities are
encouraged to develop suitable environmental management programmes by the European
Sea Ports Organisation’s Environmental Code of Practice, since the port authorities would
entail substantial investment in time and money to develop programmes on their own
(ESPO, 2010). Such system is not observed in Shanghai.
In early 2012, Antwerp for its first time published a sustainability report to
communicate the progress and results of its environmental monitoring and performance to
stakeholders. The Antwerp Port Authority and the Left Bank Development Corporation
(for the public sector) and Alfaport Antwerp (representing the private sector) are the main
driving forces behind the report. The report forms the basis for developing a sustainable
port of and for people and identifies new joint projects and areas for further study and
research. Using a range of interviews, photographs and moving images, readers obtain an
in-depth view of the actions taken and the investments made by stakeholders within
Antwerp in order to ensure sustainability as part of a future-oriented policy for the port.
While the port authority is a key facilitator and actor involved in drafting the sustainability
report, much of the progress made in the field of sustainability is the result of actions of
market players or government agencies on matters beyond the port authority jurisdiction.

10
Such a sustainability report, or such comprehensive form of reporting, is not found in the
other three ports.

4.3 Market access control and environmental standard regulation

Regulatory control is a mandatory tool used to restrict market access control and stipulate
environmental standards, which works together with the previous tools and sets a baseline
for port activities. For international conventions, like the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) adopted at the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO), each signatory nation has the accountability to enact domestic laws to
implement the convention and effectively pledges to comply with it. The status of
accession to the conventions by the four ports’ countries varies. According to IMO,
Antwerp, Rotterdam and Shanghai conform to the three IMO conventions related to green
ports, while Singapore has ratified one of the three IMO conventions which is MARPOL
Annex VI on air pollution (IMO, 2012). Singapore uses national laws as regulatory control
on the other two areas, namely oil pollution casualties and dumping of wastes.
Other than international regulatory control, legislation is at various levels depending
on the country/port which could be a stated law by the national government (as is the case
in Shanghai and Singapore), a law stipulated by the municipality (like in Antwerp and
Rotterdam), certain rules set by the port authority (e.g. in Antwerp and Rotterdam), or a
mutually binding agreement between the port authority and market players such as the
agreement on modal shift in Rotterdam (De Langen et al., 2012). It is observed that in
Antwerp and Rotterdam the port authority has a higher level of influence on devising green
port policy in comparison to the two Asian ports (it is noted that Singapore is a small city
state so it is impractical to separate port’s rules from the national level). Antwerp and
Rotterdam have more freedom to set rules and develop incentives which would be helpful
to tackle local ecological issues. The credit of this approach and also its impact is that the
localised policies tend to be more flexible and specific. This would be attributed to a
relatively open geopolitical culture in Western Europe, a not-so-systematic policy process
for environmental legislation in the EU and a decentralized legal system in each European
country as compared to many Asian countries (Hovden, 2002; Stevens, 2004).
The content of the control could cover a prohibition as is the case in Shanghai
where certain activities causing damage to the marine environment are prohibited by the
Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Marine
Pollutions from Ships (PRC, 2000), an upper limit of certain pollutants such as GHG
emission from sulphur fuel, or licenses issued only to 'clean' trucks which means cargo
handling vehicles meeting sulphur fuel limits (Port of Rotterdam, 2011). Winebrake et al.
(2009) showed that low sulphur fuel mandates can effectively reduce human premature
deaths which provide support for the associated port policy. From 2010, the fuel of ships at
the quays of European ports may not contain more than 0.1 per cent sulphur (Port of
Rotterdam, 2011; Notteboom, 2011). In Singapore, the reduction of sulphur fuel is on a
voluntary basis. In China, the relevant implementation legislation is by national law.
Although the regulations are strict, the enforcement is relatively slow and weak due to a
lack of local legitimacy caused by conflicting interests of stakeholders (Van Rooij, 2006;
Wang, 2007). As a whole, market access control and environmental standard regulation is

11
very common across the range of port functional activities, except for intermodal
connections where only Rotterdam adopts this approach.
Rotterdam is a clear example of a port authority involved in the objective to
improve and develop sustainable transport. The port of Rotterdam is at the forefront of the
fight against climate change: it designs and implements a set of policies organized in
cooperation with local authorities. The city of Rotterdam has established a program called
the Rotterdam Climate Initiative, whose aim is to “create a movement in which
governments, organizations, companies, knowledge institutes, and citizens collaborate to
achieve a 50% reduction of CO2 emissions, adapt to climate change, and promote the
economy in the Rotterdam region” (see site Rotterdam Climate Initiative). This program is
developed as part of the global cooperation group C40 Climate Leadership Group, which is
an international body aggregating several large cities wishing to fight against climate
change. The objective of the Rotterdam Climate Initiative is to halve the CO2 emissions of
the Rotterdam agglomeration in 2025 compared to 1990. In order to achieve that objective,
the program involves in an integrated way the different important local actors: the
municipality of Rotterdam, the local association Deltalinqs, the environmental protection
agency DCMR Milieudienst Rijnmond and the Rotterdam Port Authority. The port of
Rotterdam adheres to this general policy and acts on two of these five axes: sustainable
transport and sustainable energy port. Its main actions are aimed at the emissions of
vehicles and ships used by the port authority, by implementing a “green fleet”-program. In
2008, the port has signed a convention to limit the sulphur emissions of its ships. Land-
based vehicles will in the future use engines that are less polluting. Moreover, the port of
Rotterdam supports the program to develop service stations in the city that provide bio-
fuels (biodiesel, bio-ethanol, bio-gas). Rotterdam has an ambitious program for capturing
and storage of CO2 under the North Sea. Critics say that the whole future CO2 footprint of
the port and thus its expansion possibilities are very much tied to the success of the CO2
storage scheme. Any failure in this area could jeopardize future development potential of
the port.
Antwerp and Rotterdam both make agreements with shippers and terminal
operators. For instance, both port authorities use (Rotterdam) or consider using (Antwerp)
environmental criteria in the granting of land to private terminal operators. For example,
the land lease agreements between the port authority and terminal operators APM
Terminals and the Rotterdam World Gateway Consortium contain specifications on the
modal split of hinterland transport of containers from Maasvlakte 2 in favour of barge
transport and rail transport (De Langen et al., 2012). Antwerp is adopting a similar policy
for future concession agreements in the port. In this aspect, the two ports get ahead of the
two Asian ports (Shanghai and Singapore) as their regulatory control is more
comprehensive which might be attributed to the background that Europe started green port
initiatives earlier.
Environmental targets can also be enforced through licensing. For instance,
environmental licenses in Rotterdam are awarded to industrial companies by the regional
DCMR Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental criteria are also used in private
law contracts between the port authority and industrial partners, in order to go beyond
environmental laws in the Netherlands and the EU (OECD, 2010). However, the
discretionary powers of port authorities in environmental matters have their limits. It is
generally not the port authorities of Rotterdam and Antwerp that impose environmental

12
regulations on the companies (concessions being an exception to this rule), but the
municipal and regional authorities.
In 1995 the National Ports Council (Nationale Havenraad) in the Netherlands and
the Flemish Ports Commission (Vlaamse Havencommissie) in Flanders-Belgium initiated a
comparative study between the strictness of environmental law in Belgium and the
Netherlands. The results showed that environment was not a competitive issue in the
Antwerp - Rotterdam rivalry (NHR/SERV, 1998).
While the environmental level playing field continues to be considered, attention
has concomitantly shifted to the need to cooperate, both nationally and internationally. For
example, all Dutch seaports, so including Rotterdam, have agreed to adopt a uniform policy
for maritime shipping and barging, with a particular focus on, among others, cleaner
maritime shipping and barging. The ports will thus not compete on environmental policy,
but share knowledge. Also, Rotterdam and Antwerp have been instrumental in enhancing
cooperation among European ports. The Eco-Information project (1997–1999) and its
follow-up Eco-Ports (2001–2004) were the first steps towards a port-specific
environmental management system or standard for European ports. It was also the start of
the Ecoports foundation which is now under the umbrella of the ESPO. Rotterdam and
Antwerp played a key role in the establishment of the Ecoports foundation.
The idea of cooperation on environmental performance is also found back in policy
documents of the ports. In its port vision 2030, the Rotterdam Port Authority in essence
advocates a further intensification of so-called ‘ecologies of scale’ in the (petro-)chemical
industry on a regional cross-border scale (i.e. in relation to Antwerp). Rotterdam focuses a
lot on becoming a sustainable energy port, which is translated into three different
objectives: development of energy efficiency, renewable energies and the capture and
storage of CO2. For example, between 2009 and 2020 the energy produced by windmill
parks will be doubled from 151 MW to 300MW. Off shore windmills further away from
the coastline are in particular being considered. Also Antwerp has developed a similar
interest in supporting the establishment of additional windmill parks in the port area and in
stimulating logistics companies in the port to use the flat roofs of the many port warehouses
as platforms for solar panel parks.

4.4 Overall Comparison and Recommendation

In the case studies, we analyzed the various green tools used by the port authorities and
public regulators of the selected leading ports in Asia and Europe according to the port
functional activities and find that the more integrated the tools are used, the more effective
the green port will be. Among the four ports, the most focused activity is ship traffic,
followed by cargo handling and storage, port expansion and port industrial activities. This
reflects that ports are driven by IMO as the international conventions put higher weight on
pollution from ships. We do not see many initiatives in the area of intermodal hinterland
connections. The most active port authority in this area is Rotterdam, closely followed by
Antwerp. While intermodal connections are not really applicable to Singapore due to the
country’s small size and focus on transhipment, other countries can spend more effort in
promoting a modal shift through regulatory tools. Specifying an ecologically favourable
modal split as a requirement in terminal concession as in Rotterdam would be a good

13
reference for other ports when they direct towards greener hinterland transport. For
example, Shanghai can promote more barge and rail connections since the port’s reliance
on road transport is still rather high (see table 1). The overall recommendation is that it is
indispensable for ports to combine various tools together in order to reinforce effectiveness
of these policies. Regulations and penalties may be too harsh and financial incentives alone
may be too “sweet”. The port has a better chance of achieving the goal of sustainability
only by using technology innovation and making the necessary green infrastructures and
facilities available, then adopting pricing and regulatory control to alter the operators’ and
market players’ behaviour, meanwhile monitoring the environmental performance in the
whole port area and taking timely corrective actions. It should also be noted that port/public
authorities could improve a port’s environmental performance by covering a wider range of
functional activities, like intermodal transport and port industrial activities, which
guarantees sustainability along the entire logistics chain. The four ports are all undergoing
expansion projects. Importantly, the consideration of sustainability should better be
incorporated in the planning stage of such expansion.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study is an original attempt to provide an exploratory and comparative review on

green ports from the policy and management perspective. We presented a systematic
approach centered around an analytical framework that structures green port management
tools into three policy-oriented categories on one axis (i.e. pricing, monitoring and
measuring, as well as market access control and environmental standard regulation) and
according to the functional activities in ports on the other axis (i.e. shipping traffic, cargo
handling and storage operations, intermodal connection, industrial activities and port
expansion). The presented review can serve as a reference framework to other ports. The
case studies compared the situations in the leading ports in Asia and Europe, namely
Singapore, Shanghai, Antwerp and Rotterdam. Our research has revealed the similarities
and differences among the four ports’ status and approaches with regards to green port
development. In general, the port authorities and public regulators of the four ports are
active in using the three categories of port management tools to enhance the environmental
performance of the respective port. We observe that the ports are particularly mature in
exercising environmental standard regulations which reveals that the enforcement approach
is more prevalent. It is understandable as policy makers wish to achieve a greener status in
a controllable time frame, especially in view of closer scrutiny in environmental regulatory
compliance and public criticism from the international community. However,
encouragement to go beyond the minimum environmental standard requires incentives and
support from the government. The incentive pricing schemes as discussed in the analysis
can provide financial benefits to the market players, thus adeptly combine ecological
objectives with economic returns in achieving sustainability. In terms of port functional
activities, the most focused area is ship traffic which reflects that the ports are driven by the
IMO as the international conventions put higher weight on pollution from ships.

14
 The paper also serves as an exploratory study to compare the Asian and European
perspective and has accomplished to link the use of specific environmental tools to local
governance and regulatory settings. In sum, the respective port authorities in Antwerp and
Rotterdam have a higher level of influence on formulating green port policy in comparison
to the two Asian ports due to a relatively open geopolitical culture in Western Europe.
Antwerp and Rotterdam have higher flexibility to set rules and develop incentives which
would be instrumental in tackling local ecological issues. While there is merit in this
localized approach, ports are recommended to be mindful of the possible complication and
conflicts among the guidelines and rules at the local, state, national, regional and
international levels. In particular, port stakeholders have diverse interests and needs, but
they must collaborate as a whole for the port’s sustainable development. Such collaboration
could be formed through joint projects and technological innovation which are preferably
coordinated and supported by public policy makers who play a central role in strategic
planning and development.

Port authorities as facilitators in the greening of ports typically do not have an

exclusive regulatory power in the drafting, implementation and enforcement of
environmental and sustainability policy in the port area. The review presented in this paper
revealed that many tools and initiatives are the result of collaborative actions with other
public agencies and the private sector. The voluntary schemes aimed at clean ships show
that tools implemented on the basis of a constructive and continuous dialogue between the
port authority and the stakeholders have more chances of being successful.

As a whole, the paper generates useful insights and policy implications for
port/public authorities and the stakeholders concerned, not only for the four ports in this
study but also for other ports as they formulate and review green port policies. The policies
that we analysed would be a useful port framework for green port development. The
research therefore contributes to both research and practice in an increasingly important
topic. Going forward, although the four port cases are regarded as leading examples, more
ports from other countries can be studied in the future. Also, other methods can be
employed for empirical investigation in future studies. For instance, empirical tests can be
done in a larger scale facilitated by surveys. Theorisation of the findings would be a future
research direction worth pursuing. For example, institutional theory may be explored to
examine the behaviour of the port/public authorities in devising green port policy.
Furthermore, since green port policy on intermodal connection is relatively less developed,
more research can be performed to contribute to green port hinterland development. It
would be interesting to combine this research topic with dry/inland port study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study is supported by Singapore MPLP project, Nanyang Technological University
ref. M010030006.

15
REFERENCES

Bailey, D. and Solomon, G. 2004. Pollution prevention at ports: clearing the air,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, pp. 749–774
Bateman, S. 1996. Environmental issues with Australian ports, Ocean & Coastal
Management, 33(1-3), pp. 229-247
Benacchio, M., Musso, E. 2001. Ports and Economic Impact: main changes, assessment
approaches and distribution disequilibrium, Transporti Europei (Quarterly Journal
of Transport Law, Economics and Engineering), 7 (17), pp. 25-36
Berechman, J. and Tseng, P.H. 2012. Estimating the environmental costs of port related
emissions: The case of Kaohsiung, Transportation Research Part D, 17, pp. 35-38
China ACC, 2011. http://www.chinaacc.com/new/184_900_201112/20zh880717040.shtml
accessed on 26 March 2012
Clemens, B. and Douglas, T.J. 2006. Does coercion drive firms to adopt ‘voluntary’ green
initiatives? Relationships among coercion, superior firm resources, and voluntary
green initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 59 (4), pp. 483–491
Containerisation International Yearbook. 2012. London: Informa
Darbra, R.M., Pittam, N., Royston, K.A., Darbra, J.P. and Journee, H. 2009. Survey on
environmental monitoring requirements of European ports, Journal of
Environmental Management, 90, pp. 1396–1403
De Borger, B., Courcelle, C. and Swysen, D. 2004. Optimal pricing of transport
externalities in an international environment: some empirical results based on a
numerical optimization model, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(2), pp.
163-201
De Borger, B., Proost, S. and Van Dender, K. 2008. Private port pricing and public
investment in port and hinterland capacity, Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy, 42(3), pp. 527-561
De Langen, P., Van den Berg, R. and Willeumier, A. 2012. A new approach to granting
terminal concessions: the case of the Rotterdam World Gateway terminal, Maritime
Policy & Management, 39(1), pp. 79-90
Defilippi, E. and Flor, F. 2008. Regulation in a context of limited competition: A port case,
Transportation Research Part A, 42, pp. 762–773
ECOPORT Valencia, 2000. Environmental management systems in European ports. In:
Summary of Proceedings. Autoridad Portuaria de Valencia, Espana, p. 326.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 2002. Building theories from case study research, In: Huberman, A.M.
and Miles, M.B. (eds.) The Qualitative Researchers’ Companion, Sage Publications,
California, pp. 5-35
ESPO, 2010. Benchmarks of sustainablility: progress in Environmental Management
System. 03 Mar 2010 http://www.greenport.com/features101/vessel-build-and-
maintenance/assessment-tools/benchmarks-of-sustainability-progress-in-
environmental-management-systems
ESPO/EcoPorts, 2010, Port Environmental Review 2009. Brussels: ESPO
Ferrari, C. and Basta, M. 2009. Port concession fees based on the price-cap regulation: A
DEA approach, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 11(1), pp. 121-135
Florida, R. and Davison, D. 2001. Gaining from green management: Environmental
management systems inside and outside the factory. California Management
Review, 43(3), pp. 64-85.

16
Goh, M. 2010. Green ports and green shipping: Singapore’s contribution, Presentation at
World Ocean Forum, Busan, 15-17 Nov 2010
Goodchild, A. and Mohan, K. 2008. The Clean Trucks Program: evaluation of policy
impacts on marine terminal operations, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 10(4),
pp. 393-408
Gudmundsson, H., Wyatt, A. and Gordon, L. 2005. Benchmarking and Sustainable
Transport Policy: Learning from the BEST Network, Transport Reviews, 25(6), pp.
669-690
Gupta, A. K., Gupta, S. K. and Patil, R.S. 2005. Environmental management plan for port
and harbour projects, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 7(2), pp. 133–
141
Howlett, M. and Joshi-Koop, S. 2011. Transnational learning, policy analytical capacity,
and environmental policy convergence: Survey results from Canada, Global
Environmental Change, 21, pp. 85–92
Hovden, E. 2002. The legal basis of European Union policy: The case of environmental
policy, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 20(4), pp. 535-553
IMO, 2012. STATUS OF CONVENTIONS as at 29 February
2012http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.a
spx
Jonsson, D.K. and Johansson, J. 2006. Indirect effects to include in strategic environmental
assessments of transport infrastructure investments, Transport Reviews, 26(2), pp.
151-166
Kassolis, M.G. 2007. The diffusion of environmental management in Greece through
rationalist approaches: driver or product of globalisation? Journal of Cleaner
Production, 15(18), pp. 1886–1893
Lashof, D.A. and Ahuja, D.R. 1990. Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to
global warming, Nature, 344, pp. 529 – 531
Lee, C.K.M. and Lam, J.S.L. 2012. Managing reverse logistics to enhance sustainability of
industrial marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), pp. 589-598
Li, K.X., Dong, B. and Zhu, L. 2013. Legal system of compensation for marine oil
pollution in China, Maritime Policy & Management, 40(5), pp. 404-416
Liao, C.H., Tseng, P.H., Cullinane, K. and Lu, C.S. 2010. The impact of an emerging port
on the carbon dioxide emissions of inland container transport: An empirical study
of Taipei port, Energy Policy, 38, pp. 5251–5257
MPA Singapore 2011. S$100 million Boost to Clean and Green Shipping in Singapore
http://www.smw.sg/downloads/Green_pledge_press_release.pdf accessed on 12
March 2012
MPA Singapore 2013. Maritime Singapore Green Initiative.
http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/maritime_singapore/msgi/maritime-singapore-green-
initiative.page. Accessed on 31 Oct 2013
Ng, A.K.Y. and Song, S. 2010. The environmental impacts of pollutants generated by
routine shipping operations on ports, Ocean & Coastal Management, 53, pp. 301-
311
NHR/SERV, 1998. Milieuregelgeving container - en stukgoedsector in de havens van
Antwerpen en Rotterdam. Nationale Havenraad/Vlaamse Havencommissie, The
Hague/Brussels.

17
Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W., 2003. Dealing with stakeholders in the port planning
process, in: Dullaert, W., Jourquin, B., Polak, J., Across the border: building upon a
quarter of century of transport research in the Benelux, De Boeck, Antwerp, pp.
249-265
Notteboom, T. 2007. Concession agreements as port governance tools, in: Brooks, M.,
Cullinane, K.(eds.) Devolution, Port Governance and Port Performance, Research
in Transportation Economics, Volume 17, Elsevier, pp. 437-455
Notteboom, T., 2011. The impact of low sulphur fuel requirements in shipping on the
competitiveness of roro shipping in Northern Europe, WMU Journal of Maritime
Affairs, 10(1), pp. 63-95
Notteboom, T., Verhoeven, P. and Fontanet, M. 2012. Current practices in European ports
on the awarding of seaport terminals to private operators: towards an industry good
practice guide, Maritime Policy & Management, 39(1), pp. 107-123
OECD, 2010. Environmental impacts of international shipping: a case study of the port of
Rotterdam, ENV/EPOC/WPNEP/T(2009)6/FINAL, OECD: Paris
Osthorst, W. and Manz, C. 2012. Types of cluster adaptation to climate change. Lessons
from the port and logistics sector of Northwest Germany, Maritime Policy &
Management, 39(2), pp. 227-248
People’s Republic of China 2000. Marine Environment Protection Law 中华人民共和国海
洋环境保护法
http://law.shmsa.gov.cn/smls/WebPages/Law/LawDetail.aspx?CatalogId=15692&&Keyword=%E6%B5%B7
%E6%B4%8B%E6%B1%A1%E6%9F%93&&TreePath=100000020020&&typelang=LangType
accessed on 11 March 2012
Peris-Mora, E., Diez Orejas J.M., Subirats, A., Ibanez, S. and Alvarez, P. 2005.
Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management, Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 50, pp. 1649–1660
Port of Antwerp 2010. Annual Report 2010. Energy and climate policy
http://annualreport2010.portofantwerp.com/en/page/194/energy-and-climate-policy
accessed on 11 March 2012
Port of Antwerp, 2012. http://www.portofantwerp.com/en/strategy-policy-0 accessed on 26
March 2012
Port of Long Beach 2009. Annual Report 2009
http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7445 accessed on 15
February 2012
Port of Rotterdam 2011. Maasvlakte 2 Sustainable
transporthttp://www.maasvlakte2.com/en/index/show/id/600/Sustainable+transport
Harbour Dues http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/Shipping/harbour-
dues/Pages/Apply-ESI-discount.aspx accessed on 11 March 2012
Port of Rotterdam. 2008. CSR Annual report 2008
http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/Port-authority/corporate-social-
responsibility/Documents/CSR-Annual-Report2008.pdf accessed on 11 March
2012
Rietkerk, M., Van de Koppel, J., Kumar, L. Van Langevelde, F. and Prins H.H.T. 2002.
The ecology of scale, Ecological Modelling, 149(1-2), pp. 1–4
Su, Y.L. 2009. Shanghai port’s waterway and railway transportation, China Ports, 8, pp.
22-24 (in Chinese)

18
Stead, D. 2008. Institutional aspects of integrating transport, environment and health
policies, Transport Policy, 15, pp. 139–148
Stevens, H., 2004. Transport Policy in the European Union, Houndsmills: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Tzannatos, E. 2010. Ship emissions and their externalities for the port of Piraeus – Greece,
Atmospheric Environment, 44, pp. 400-407
United Nations, 1992. Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Port Development. A
Guidebook for EIA of Port Development, New York
Van Rooij, B. 2006. Implementation of Chinese Environmental Law: regular enforcement
and political campaigns, Development and Change, 37(1), pp. 57–74
Villalba, G. and Gemechu, E.D. 2011. Estimating GHG emissions of marine ports - the
case of Barcelona, Energy Policy, 39, pp. 363–1368
Wang, C. 2007. Chinese Environmental Law enforcement: current deficiencies and
suggested reforms, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 8(2), pp. 159-193
Winebrake, J.J., Corbett, J. J., Green, E.H., Lauer, A. and Eyring, V. 2009. Mitigating the
health impacts of pollution from oceangoing shipping: an assessment of low-sulfur
fuel mandates, Environmental Science and Technology, 43(13), pp. 4776–4782
Wooldridge, C.F., McMullen, C. and Howe, V. 1999. Environmental management of ports
and harbours - implementation of policy through scientific monitoring, Marine
Policy, 23(4-5), pp. 413-425
World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) 2013. http://esi.wpci.nl/Public/Ships accessed on 28
November 2013
Yap, W.Y. and Lam, J.S.L. 2013. 80 Million-Twenty-Foot-Equivalent-Unit container port?
Sustainability issues in port and coastal development, Ocean and Coastal
Management, 71, pp. 13-25
Yap, W.Y., Lam, J.S.L. and Cullinane, K. 2011. A theoretical framework for the evaluation
of competition between container terminal operators, Singapore Economic Review.
56(4), pp. 535–559

19
 Table 1: Key data and status of the four ports
Antwerp Rotterdam Shanghai Singapore

Port ranking by 14 11 1 2
container throughput

Cargo tonnage 184 442 736 538

(million)

Container 8.64 11.87 32.53 31.65

throughput (million
TEU)

Modal Road % 31 54 65 Majority

split
Rail % 12 10.7 1 Minority

Barge % 32 35.3 34 Minority

Port expansion Saeftinghe Maasvlakte 2: in Yangshan Port Pasir Panjang

project Development Area: total 2000 hectares, Phase 4: additional Terminal Phases
over 1000 hectares 1000 hectares for 4 million TEU 3 and 4: 250
for ports related ports related capacity hectares
industries industries

Source: compiled by authors from 1) respective ports’ website, 2) Containerisation International Yearbook (2012) (for
port ranking and container throughput), 3) Su (2009) (for Shanghai’s modal split)

Note: latest data for modal split in Antwerp and Shanghai are in 2010 and 2009 respectively; No specific % of modal split
is available for Singapore

20
 Table 2: Green port tools in the four ports

Tools used by port authority/ public regulator

Penalty pricing Incentive pricing Monitoring & measuring Market access control & environmental standard
regulation
Shipping Surcharge to docking fees Ships meet Environmental Ship Ship GHG emission - Sulphur fuel cap, GHG emission
traffic Rotterdam Index scores are granted a discount Antwerp Rotterdam Rotterdam Antwerp Shanghai Singapore (IMO MARPOL VI)
on GT section
Shanghai Singapore - Regulation on oil pollution casualties
Antwerp Rotterdam
Fines on marine oil spill Rotterdam
Antwerp Rotterdam Shanghai Environmental Management System Antwerp Shanghai (IMO INTERVENTION Convention 69)
Singapore Antwerp Rotterdam Singapore - Regulation/control on pollution damage to marine environment by
Green Port Program (GPP) -
Port functional activities

vessels
Reduction of port dues
Sustainability report Antwerp (co-signed document by shippers, terminal operators and port
Singapore authority)
Antwerp
Shanghai (Regulations of China1)
Singapore (Regulations of Singapore2)
Cargo - - Crane GHG emission - Cargo handling vehicles with Sulphur fuel limits
handling
Antwerp Rotterdam Antwerp (Antwerp Port Authority)
and storage
Singapore Rotterdam (Municipality of Rotterdam3)
- Terminal concession criterion on sustainability
Vehicle GHG emission
Rotterdam (Port of Rotterdam Authority), Antwerp (future)
Antwerp Rotterdam - Regulated operation activities

Singapore Shanghai (Regulations of China1)

Environmental Management System

Antwerp Rotterdam

Singapore

Sustainability report

Antwerp

21
Intermodal Fines for non-compliance with - Monitoring and analysis of policy Agreement on modal shift
agreements on modal shift developments
connection
Rotterdam (agreement between terminal operators and port authority)
Antwerp
Rotterdam
Sustainability report

Antwerp

22
 Tools used by port authority/ public regulator (cont’d)

Penalty pricing Incentive pricing Monitoring & measuring Market access control & environmental standard
regulation
Industrial Fines on pollution damage to the Financial incentives for companies Quality of dock water - Regulation on marine pollution by dumping of wastes
marine environment by dumping of that carry out energy audit
activities
wastes Antwerp Rotterdam Antwerp Shanghai (IMO London Convention Protocol 96)
Antwerp Singapore (Regulations of Singapore2)
Shanghai Oxygen and nutrient concentrations
monitoring - CO2 reduction
Port functional activities

Rotterdam Rotterdam (Rotterdam Climate Initiative)

Sustainability report

Antwerp

Port Fines on pollution damage to the - Ecological port design and - Regulation on pollution damage to marine environment by coastal
marine environment by coastal construction construction projects
expansion
construction projects
Antwerp Rotterdam Antwerp (Flemish Port Decree4)
Shanghai Shanghai Singapore
Rotterdam (Municipality of Rotterdam3)
Shanghai (Regulations of China1)

- Approval from government authorities

Singapore (Singapore government5)

1
Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Marine Pollutions from Ship
2
The Environmental Public Health (Toxic Industrial Waste) Regulations 1988
3
The city of Rotterdam Port Management Bye-Laws (version: September 2011)
4
Flemish Port Decree, 1999 (Official Gazette No. 99/992)
5
Committee for Marine Projects consisting of the National Environment Agency, Urban Redevelopment Authority and Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore
Source: authors based on references in section 4

23
24