Delmo Alves de Moura
Federal University of ABC, Brazil
E-mail: delmo.moura@ufabc.edu.br
Davi Goulart de Andrade
Federal University of ABC, Brazil
E-mail: davigoulartandrade@gmail.com
Submission: 15/09/2017
Revision: 06/03/2018
Accept: 15/03/2018
ABSTRACT
This
paper aims to evaluate the sustainable performance within the concept of Green
Port in the logistics operations. Through literature review about green port
implementation in different ports worldwide, as well as the studies of various
technologies and methods that aim to make the port environment more
sustainable, this study will go through different levels, from the shipping
loading and unloading, passing through all sectors and actors related to the
movement of cargo inside the port, which may on the sustainable performance of
the environment, to the inland transportation. The study focus on the reduction
of emissions of pollutant gases such as sulfur oxides (Sox), oxides of nitrogen
(NOx), atmospheric particulate matter (PM) and Carbon dioxide (CO2). The work
addresses the possible innovations in the logistics operations inherent in the
transportation, storage, and handling of goods, involving the analysis, types,
and operations of the resources used in the port management of the largest port
in Brazil, Port of Santos.
Keywords: Green Port, Sustainability, Green
Logistics, Port Operations, Port of Santos
1. INTRODUCTION
As
the World is becoming more concerned with the harmful effects that pollution
may cause to Earth, the need for greener activities has been getting more
attention, in order to reduce those effects. The global warming is becoming a
term cited more frequently, and it can be defined as the heating of the
atmosphere, as it naturally occurs in vast of time, but it is not only due to
natural causes. The problem is that the pollutants released by human activity
speed up this process and may cause harm to living beings on Earth.
Around
3% of the gross global emission comes from shipping activities, and this is an
amount that cannot be disregarded since it has a significant impact on the
environmental quality of the Earth (LI; LIU; JIANG, 2011). The logistics
processes attempt to execute their activities in such a way that it saves both
time and cost. Hence, integrating this concept with sustainability, the green
logistics aims to achieve both economic and environmental satisfaction, which
can lead to improved business competitiveness by reducing emissions and
distribution cost due to the need for a new efficient logistics system (PARK;
YEO, 2012).
Ports
are places with high level of operations, where there are much cargo handling
equipment and traffic. Therefore, the operations of those equipment, vehicles,
trains and ships generate many pollutants, such as air pollution, which implies
the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), sulfur oxides (SOX),
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter as well, ports may have different
impacts on the environment surrounding them, especially if it is close to urban
areas.
Besides
air pollution, problems like noise pollution, dredging, water contamination and
the constant risk of releasing accidentally hazardous material are also
present. Such problems, like those gathered with the need to lower utilization
of energy levels, as well as the development of ecological protection and a
healthy living nearby the terminals, implied the creation of a Green Port
concept, where an environment could be built in order to improve the
environmental efficiency, as well as economic aspects and social linkages with
the surrounding community (DARBRA et al., 2005; YANG, 2017).
The
use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in port operations can contribute
significantly to reduce emissions if compared to the ships' traditional engines
that use diesel (ACCIARO et al., 2014). LNG is the cleanest fossil fuel and has
the potential to reduce the emission of the following gases: NOX - 92%; CO2 -
23%; SO2 - 100% and Atmospheric Particulate Matter - 100%.
The
use of LNG as a fuel for water transport was tested on 35 vessels in Norway. In
March 2013, the Port of Stockholm became one of the first ports in the world to
offer LNG as a ship fuel. It was a passenger ship - a ferry (CLEANSHIP, 2013).
The
association of the Baltic ports has developed an infrastructure for LNG to be
the fuel for ships in some ports in the Baltic Sea region. That association has
had the support of the main industrial organizations as ship-owners, the national
organization of the ports and the ESPO - European Sea Ports Organization.
Long-term
exposure to atmospheric particulate matter (PM) and Nitrogen oxides (NOx) has a
significant effect on the health of employees working directly in port
operations, as well as in the local population (TANG et al., 2017; PERIS-MORA
et al., 2005; HARTMAN; CLOTT, 2012).
The
increasing volumes of cargo have intensified the impacts on the marine
environment. Due to those impacts, necessities of protecting the marine
environment and creating a new eco-port concept have surged with the objective
to reduce emission of greenhouse gases e pollutants, create a port environment
where it can be possible to conserve the marine life, control the pollution and
the energy consumption, as well as to keep the place an attractive environment.
Also, this new concept of green environment improves the competitiveness of the
ports and increase the trend to become environmentally-friendly, that is why
many ports around the world are struggling to become greener ports (LIAO et
al., 2016).
The
community requested many ports in Europe to adopt greener activities based on
different surveys applied by the European Sea Ports Organizations (ESPO)/Eco
ports. Those changes in activities can be used in several operations, for
example, port planning, cargo handling, and industrial activities are among the
sectors where environmental issues can be present, and alternatives can be
implemented. The implementation of greener alternatives in ports can be beneficial
since it increases the potential of being more attractive to investors and
partners, in particular with the support of the community (LAM; NOTTEBOOM,
2014).
This
incentive of implementing greener alternatives in port activities in different
countries, especially when those implementations bring good results, can
inspire other countries just like Brazil, to adopt such alternatives, to
collaborate not only with the local environment but also aiming to contribute
significantly to the reduction of the global pollution.
This
paper aims to bring an approach to the definition of Green Port at the Port of
Santos, Located in Santos - São Paulo – Brazil.
The main idea is to identify and analyze the green operations that are
currently happening at the port, through pointing out sustainable logistics
indicators to analyze the logistics activities in different terminals.
Also,
the paper will focus what the port authority has been doing when it comes to
environmental sustainability, as well as the private companies that operate at
this port, through the application of specific questionnaires. A study
regarding the viability of the electrification of cargo handling equipment
(CHE) in the logistics operations to analyze the reduction of emission through
fossil fuels will also be on the topic.
The
study of the viability of further green implementations based on the methods
that modern ports with the title of Green Port is something that can bring many
benefits to the city of Santos since it can help the local environment by
reducing the emission of pollutants through clean and efficient operations at
the port. This study also aims to enrich the literature by bringing an
extensive analysis of the green operation in the Port of Santos, where there is
a lack of knowledge related to the green logistics in that area.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
For
many years, the problems regarding emissions of ships and port operations were
not the main concern until events that had a very harmful impact on the
environment, such as oils spills happened in the past years. Those events
caused many negative effects on the environment and came up as something that
needed attention. From this point, in the recent years, the creation of
sustainability reports to certain environmental organizations, as well as, the
need for an implementation of green logistics with a proactive focus, all
within technical, operational and economic focus have surged (DAVARZANI et al.,
2016).
There
are many ports worldwide, and it is evident that the marine transportation
plays an exceptional role in the global international trade, since around 80%
of the volume of goods is carried out by ships between those ports. With the
emergence of the need for greener activities from the recognition of protection
of the marine environment and the fact that ports have a significant impact on
the environment that they are situated, the term “Green Port” has emerged with
relative importance (LIAO et al., 2016).
Different
shipping companies have started to take initiatives to help with the
environmental issues; those are called green shipping practices (GSP). Those
practices comprehend the management of different activities, like waste
reduction, resource conservation and practices such as counting the carbon
footprint of all the routes ships go through and also the changing in the form
of transportation such as the transfer of goods, by utilizing fewer road trucks
and smaller vessels for the transport of goods between main ports and secondary
ports (LAI et al., 2011).
For
Pavlic et al. (2014), the energy consumption in ports is huge due to the
different kinds of cargo handling equipment, such as rubber tired gantry (RTG)
cranes, reach stackers, yard tractors, wheel loaders and forklifts.
Stakeholders may be aware of that energy consumption because when you have
energy and environmental management systems, this can lead to a better
knowledge regarding the activities, and it allows them to better plan
strategies.
Moreover,
when it comes to the energy consumption in ports, one of the most difficult
challenges is to empower workers, especially those on the shop floor operating
different vehicles and machines to achieve a better level of consumption by
being properly instructed. For the author, many ports in the world found
themselves in need of improving their process continuously to achieve economic
growth while reducing adverse impacts on the environment.
Such
activities and strategies came up with the definition of the term Green Port:
“It is defined as a product of the long-term strategy for the sustainable and
climate friendly development of port’s infrastructure.” To achieve a status of
Green Port, every actor, from the management to the shop floor must act
responsibly.
The
concept of green port for Maritz and Yeh (2014) is a port characterized by a
favorable environment, ecological protection and reasonable utilization of
resources, low energy consumption and low levels of pollution. It has to
generate a Green Value to bear social responsibility. In addition, the green
port implementation must be straight linked with the port management;
otherwise, the success cannot be achieved.
The
electrification is an essential item for a Green port. Several terminals have
electrified their RTGs, which has been renamed the E-RTG. Some examples are the
Modern Terminal Limited (Hong Kong) and Lazaro Cardenas Terminal (Mexico).
Those terminals collaborate with the environment, reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases (LIRN et al., 2013; PATRÍCIO, 2014).
The
Port of Aalborg (Denmark) announced that it achieved to be the first CO2
neutral port in Denmark, along with being among the few CO2 neutral ports in
the world.
Pavlic
et al. (2014) describe what the main features that need to be implemented or
changed to achieve the implementation of the green port concept are. Those
changes apply to different sectors, such as the need of replacing the fossil
fuel engines of the operational equipment to engines that use renewable energy
as a source, or even the conversion of the old engines into more sustainable
ones, such as converting from diesel to LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas).
The
author also let it clear that the changes are not only in operational issues,
but there is a need for making changes also in the management and the planning
practices of the port, such as the monitoring of energy and water consumption,
and the indicators of environmental quality.
At
the beginning of a green port implementation, the port management must evaluate
all the operations undergoing, all the environmental practices and the energy
data, also the decentralization of the responsibilities and the empowering of
employees, especially on the shop floor to achieve a better environmental
performance. All this information must lead the management to have a commitment
and active support.
The
use of power from the port, called Onshore Power Supply (OPS) reduces adverse
effects on the environment, such as noise and air pollution, as they allow the
auxiliary engines of the ships to be switched off. Ships have to keep their
engines running when at berth in a port to supply onboard equipment with
energy. When ships are connected to a power supply from land or by barge (LNG),
they can shut down their engines to reduce air polluting emissions at least
while at berth.
The
implementation of the OPS allows an opportunity not only to improve quality but
also to lessen the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the main
contributors to the greenhouse effect. The power for OPS must be produced using
renewable energies (ROH et al., 2016; LIRN et al., 2013; CLEANSHIP, 2013;
ACCIARO et al., 2014; SCIBERRAS, et al., 2017; WALKER, 2016).
The
use of the OPS can be profitable for the regular waterway transport line when
the vessel always lands in the same port and terminals. For ships carrying containers,
which usually dock at different terminals, such ports must have several
terminals with adequate infrastructure to connect the OPS system to ships
(ACCIARO et al., 2014; SCIBERRAS, et al., 2017; WALKER, 2016; CLEANSHIP, 2013).
The
creation of KPIs (Key performance indicator) is also highlighted by the author,
since it is a tool that can be very useful to assess performance efficiency,
and for monitoring the operational performance because they help to
decentralize the environmental responsibilities when implementing the green
port concept.
In
addition to the KPIs, the author also tells about the implementation of the
Energy Performance Index (EnPI), which consists of a ratio between the actual
energy consumption and the benchmark energy consumption, whereas these last
ones were extracted from historical data, such as the operator, vehicle, time
of the day and the volume of activity. EnPI has a set value of 1.0, if this
ratio is higher than 1.0, it indicates that there is a problem in the performance.
Those indicators are essential during the process of learning and the
adaptation because they are useful tools to analyze the performance to
implement the concept of a green port successfully.
Bergqvist
and Zandén (2012) show the importance of planning a port’s inland logistics,
which consists in the linkage of the transportation of cargo through different
modal types, such as rail, barge, and trucks, to hinterland places that have
economic contact with the port. Ports have become so important regarding global
logistics that their decisions influence the global and local logistics service
providers directly.
The
author makes it clear that it is very important for the ports’ management
departments to plan the port activities with the inland logistics activities in
other to get a better economic and environmental performance. This planning for
many times ends up leading the port authorities to choose rail or barge
transportation, instead of road transportation since they deliver less delay
compared to the utilization of trucks, less environmental impact, fewer costs
and a better throughput in the port.
The
design of hinterland transportation systems together with an efficient inland
logistics planning may lead to a better performance both in economic and environmental
terms, which leads the port closer to a green port status. The utilization of
less fossil fuel is a key factor to achieve a better environmental performance
through providing a cleaner air.
That
is what Chang and Wang (2012) bring through their analysis of the emissions
from ships. Around 60000 annual cardiopulmonary and lung cancer occur due to PM
(Particulate Matter) emission from ships. Their study analyzed the possibility
of changing the type of fuel used in vessels that currently are residual fuel
to a distillate one. However, what makes it difficult is the fact that the
distillate fuel has a higher cost and companies around the world are not ready
for this change yet.
What
ports with a green port status have been doing to ease this problem is the
adoption of a low-speed policy for vessel within a certain area close to the
port, which has shown positive results in the reduction of the emissions of
particulate matter.
Maritz
and Yeh (2014) also list the ten green port guidelines for good practices to
reach a successful implementation of the green port concept. These are: Recyclable
Material Selection; Waste Management; Saving Water Resources; Reduction in
Energy Consumption; Use of Mass Transportation; Internal Environment Quality
Promotion; Waste Emission Reduction; Water Quality; Effective Use of Port Land
and Management of the Environment.
In
addition to the ten green port guidelines, the author, based on different
researches could develop a framework with key factors in the green port
establishment. The establishment of a green port is first to split into three
distinct areas. These are the Environmental Quality, the Environmental
Construction and the Resource Management; from these three sectors, it is
possible to see the key factors that collaborate to the implementation of the
green port concept:
•
Environmental Quality - Carbon dioxide, Water quality,
Land use and Environmental management.
•
Environmental Construction - Expansion of planting,
Green building, Comprehensive E-service and Wireless network in port.
•
Resource Management - Material Selection, Management
of waste, Water resource, Energy use and Transportation.
Chiu
et al. (2014) went over the analysis that Maritz and Yeh (2014) brought with
the split of green port implementation measures. To make a study case by using
a Fuzzy AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) which is a decision-making process
based on multiple attributes. He brings several hierarchies with different
goals related to the implementation of a green port.
When it
comes to port area pollution, there are different types of pollution sources at
a port, and some of the major sources are the Cargo Handling Equipment. The
largest equipment between those is the RTG (Rubber Tyred Crane), which is
considered to be one of the main sources of pollution at the port. RTGs are
cranes known for their efficiency in handling a large number of containers.
Their
mobility makes it possible to rearrange them to improve the operational
efficiency. Those cranes are traditionally powered by a diesel generator set
consisting of a diesel engine coupled with an alternator. They have a capacity
of moving container weighing up to 50 tones at a rate of 20 container moves per
hour.
The
cranes powered by diesel have some disadvantages such as high mechanical
maintenance costs, a high level of exhaust and noise pollution, and also a high
level of fuel consumption. There are different types of technology applied to
RTGs to improve their performance, those are: variable-speed generators, flywheel
energy storage, hybrid RTGs with regenerative braking and electrified
zero-emission cranes, the Electric Rubber Tyred Gantry (eRTG).
The
disadvantages of diesel-powered RTGs are leading to their replacement by eRTGs.
In the past eRTGs were difficult to deal with since the power cable array
reduced their mobility and flexibility, but today those problems have been
overcome. (VUJIČIĆ et al., 2013; YANG; CHANG, 2013). These are some advantages
of the eRTGs:
Reduction
of maintenance costs, up to 70%, 95% savings of diesel consumption, reduction
of operational costs, up to 70% and from 60% up to 80% reduction in CO2
emissions.
It is
possible to note that eRTGs offer many benefits, especially regarding
sustainability compared with the traditional RTGs. When it comes to the
implementation of a green port concept, the electrification of ports is an
ultimate strategy to reduce the emissions in that area, and equipment such as
the RTGs are easier to replace or improve since they are straightly managed by
the port authority (KIM et al., 2012).
Until
this point of the paper, it is possible to understand that implementing the
concept of Green port is not an easy task. The port is made of many different
components, as previously mentioned, many factors need to be changed, as well
monitored. That is why indicators are used; they are extremely important for
implementing an EMS (Environmental Management System) at a port. Since
indicators are quantitative information that is offered in real time, through
their analysis, it is possible to monitor the improvements being made towards
an objective (PUIG et al., 2017).
Belfiore
(2003) also adds that the use of indicators to address environmental issues
have been widely used in ICM (Integrated Coastal Management) because they are
very important to demonstrate progress and compare results involving regions
and projects portfolios. Among the literature, there are some definitions of
indicators that can be considered relevant for this study, to have a
well-established concept of indicators.
For
Pavlic et al. (2014) an indicator may be defined as a characteristic which,
when measured repeatedly, demonstrates ecological trends, and a measure of
current state or quality of an area. For Le et al. (2014) an indicator is a
variable that describes the state of a system.
When
facing such environmental problems, it is possible to note how ports around the
world have been implementing different practices towards a greener port
environment. These practices may differ among the ports, but it is possible to
note that all of them leads to the same objective that is to protect the
environment in different scales, global and regional. However, every port needs a starting point to
start the green port practices.
The
port, at first, must have a relevant level of environmental knowledge before
the practical implementations, that is why a method called SDM (Self Diagnosis
Method) has been developed. Through this method, it is possible to evaluate the
environmental management of the port in question through a strategic
questionnaire designated to environmental managers (DARBRA et al., 2004; ROMERO
et al., 2014). The SDM method has five objectives, these are:
•
To regularly review the environmental management
performance in the port;
•
to allow periodic self-evaluation of environmental
improvement in the port;
•
to compare the port environmental performance against
a European benchmark;
•
to identify environmental priorities in the port;
•
to move towards the implementation of an environmental
management system.
The
SDM method may help to define its different areas to be improved, to reach a
first level of environmental. Once the port has an environmental structure, it
is possible to use better the EPIs (Environmental Performance Indicators) which
help to track the continuous its improvements through scientific evidence and
quantifiable measures.
EPIs
can be defined as “an information tool that summarizes data on complex
environmental issues to show overall status and trends of those issues.” They
can monitor different factors that influence the port, such as physical,
biological, chemical, social, environmental and economic systems.
Moreover,
they are important when it comes to the implementation of a certification of an
EMS (Environmental Management System) as well as the PERS (Port Environmental
Review System), EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) and the International
Organization for Standardization, ISO 14001 (PUIG et al., 2014). These
certifications are the highlights for a reaching a status of a green port.
The
SDM is an important component to complete PERS, since it can highlight the most
significant shortfalls in environmental management, which helps to set the
environmental objectives. The Self-Diagnosis Method consists of two sections,
the Port Profile and the Environmental Management and Procedures (DARBRA,
2004). It is made by nine different sections and 253 qualitative questions
designed to be a user-friendly tool (PUIG, 2017).
After
completing the SDM, the next step is the implementation of PERS, which is a
management system specifically for ports and helps to define good practice
standards, after this leads to the EMS guidelines. According to Maritz and Yeh
(2014), EMS can be defined as a tool to manage environmental performance of an
organization using a comprehensive, systematic and documented approach. It
means it is the entrance to obtain an ISO 14001 or EMAS, which are the top of
the environmental certifications (LE et al., 2014)
Seguí
et al. (2016) let it clear about the importance of the implementation of green
practices within the port operations. In order to reach a green status, it is
important for a port to have knowledge of all their activities in different
areas. That is why Seguí et al. (2016) created a questionnaire to monitor the
activities of 27 different ports in Europe. It was based on different KPIs (key
performance indicators) to determine what would be the best questions to ask
the stakeholders to obtain an excellent result.
Among
the sources to achieve effective KPIs the author used as his base, different
methods used by the SDM, PEARL project, PPRISM project and PORTOPIA project,
which was fundamental for the elaboration of the questionnaire. Moreover, it
was possible to formulate five different criteria to develop an effective
questionnaire. It was listed by the author, as the following points:
•
Realistic: the proposed questions or indicators were
accurately defined according to the characteristics and the real needs of the
inland ports.
•
Feasible: considering the current situation of inland
ports, the answers of the proposed questionnaire were designed so that they
involve few resources to report on them as well as a reasonable time.
•
Uncomplicated: linked to the last point, the questions
proposed were easily formulated to make them understandable. Also, the
questionnaire was launched in a user-friendly format.
•
Qualitative: it has been observed that inland ports do
not normally share fig-ures of their performance with quantitative results.
Therefore, it was considered to include qualitative questions in order to get
better feedback from them.
•
Added value: to persuade the inland ports to report
the required information, it was necessary to show them the importance of the
reporting culture to contribute in a positive benchmark that pushes ports into
a better performance.
The
questionnaire is made up of four different sections; these are environmental
management, environmental monitoring, environmental priorities and green
actions. Their study collaborated to enrich the PORTOPIA project’s database.
PORTOPIA (Port Observatory for Performance Indicator Analysis) is a project
where European ports can manage their performance, based on KPIs that were
previously selected (PORTOPIA, 2017).
Le et
al., (2014) made a study about the preliminary steps of implementing green port
practices in Vietnam. To make this study possible based his methods on the SDM
to apply the questionnaires in the right way. The first step was to define who
are the key stakeholders of the ports any group or individual who can affect or
is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives. Based on this he could define three different
groups of stakeholders:
•
Port’s Environmental managers.
•
Key actors of the port (employees, service staff and
scientists).
•
The neighborhood of the port.
Through
his study, it was possible to develop three different questionnaires that could
generate relevant data and questions that could be applied in interviews, to
find the may environmental issues addressed by all the stakeholders, making it
possible to compare the results among the five ports under study.
Puig
et al. (2017) bring an important tool to be used to develop a questionnaire for
the beginning phases of the green port implementation. This tool is called Tool
for the identification and implementation of Environmental Indicators in Ports
(TEIP). The main reason to identify EPIs (Environmental Performance Indicators)
is that they ensure that the daily activities of the ports are sustainably
developed. The EPIs can not only be beneficial to the port authorities but to
other stakeholders as well, since they are quantifiable measures, customers,
shipping companies and also the community may take advantage of them.
There
are three environmental standards mainly used at ports; these are: the
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) 14001, the Eco Management
and Audit Scheme (EMAS) Regulation and the Port Environmental Review System
(PERS).
ISO
14001 do not provide any specific indicator to implement, but it gives examples
that can be considered. However, both EMAS and PERS provide core EPIs to be
used. PERS is the only protocol specific for ports. Puig et al. (2017) noticed
that it was important to have a standard methodology that can provide specific
results to any port since each port is different and need EPIs to ensure an
environmental protection and sustainable development.
Through
the TEIP tool, it is possible to obtain the most appropriate indicators to use
in a particular port. That can be obtained from a user-friendly online tool for
any port, inland port or seaports. The advantages of the TEIP are not only the
acquisition of the right indicators, but it can also provide information about
the port to exchange knowledge between different ports.
The
basis of the EMS implementation has its origins back in 1998 with the ECOPORT
project Towards A Sustainable Transport Network. The establishment of EMS had
as its objective to create basic conditions to develop a sustainable management
in European ports. The ISO 14001 was the first standard to open doors for the
EMS implementation, and nowadays in Europe, it is a prerequisite in the
certification process to obtain and EMAS, which is one of the major standards
(PERIS-MORA et al., 2005).
Peris
et al. (2005) still highlight the complexity of the variables at a port, and
how difficult it can be to understand all of them in a complex ecosystem. As
mentioned by (BICHOU; GRAY, 2005) Seaports are complex, and dynamic entities,
and Peris-Mora et al. (2005) add that it is barely possible to an individual
try to completely understand it. For this reason, it was important to replace
such variable by indicators in a limited number that could simplify the
analysis.
Peris-Mora
et al., (2005) also bring a list made of topics that indicate the general
characteristics of port indicators. Following there are some of the most
important topics:
•
Representativeness: The indicators should represent
environmental behavior accurately.
•
Purpose: When indicators are evaluating an activity,
they need to focus on goals that need to be accomplished.
•
Usefulness: The indicators need to be useful to the
activity.
•
Comparability: The indicators should provide
information to be compared to different ports.
•
Sensitivity: The indicators should respond quickly,
adaptable and appropriately to environmental changes.
•
Clarity: The indicators should be concise, accurate,
simple and easy to interpret.
•
Reliability: The indicators should be reliable in
obtaining and developing the data.
•
Continuity: Data should often be collected to compare
results.
•
Scientific verification: The indicator should be
preferably quantitative. If this were not possible, it should be hierarchically
categorized.
It is
possible to note that according to these last authors, the use of indicators is
extremely important, not only to secure the environment that the port is
situated, but they also collaborate to the economic growth of the port. Many
certifications used by green ports, such as ISO 14001, EMAS and PERS use
indicators during the implementation phase because they are mandatory to
monitor the port sectors and obtain relevant data.
A
problem we can notice is that, as mentioned by Puig et al., (2014), each port
is unique. And through the observation of different ports and their activities,
some may present ease for the implementation of an environmental certification,
and some may not. In the case of Brazil, there is a lack of studies about this
kind of implementation, if we compare to the studies about European ports.
However,
Ross and Neto (2016) conducted a study regarding the environmental performance
of some Brazilian ports. They could obtain some significant information from
their study. In the 1990s a reformulation of the ports in Brazil was conducted.
However, an environmental policy was not considered during this process, what
contributed negatively to the growth of the environmental regulations in the
country. Also, until 2013 only around 62% of the ports in Brazil had an
environmental operating license, and unfortunately the Port of Santos was not
among them.
Ross
and Neto (2016) also noticed that there are two different environmental
indicators systems in Brazil implemented by two different state agencies. Those
are the PNLP (National Port Logistics Plan) developed by the SEP (National
Secretary of Ports) and the IDA (Environmental Performance Index), developed by
the ANTAQ (National Water Transport Agency).
The
PNLP focus on the performance of the port as a whole, while the IDA has as its
purpose to provide data on environmental management (PNLP, 2015; ANTAQ, 2017).
However, both present operational indicators related to logistics, which can be
integrated with new suggestions of sustainable indicators in the logistics
operations at the port, as shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Agency and Indicator
|
AGENCY |
INDICATOR |
|
ANTAQ |
Removal of waste from vessels |
|
ANTAQ |
Operations of containers containing
dangerous products |
|
SEP |
Port installations with adequate waiting
time |
|
SEP |
Modal distribution at the access to the
ports |
|
SEP |
Port with adequate level of roadway
service |
|
SEP |
Use of the railway capacity of the port
accesses |
|
SEP |
Growth percentage of cabotage (short sea
shipping) movement |
|
SEP |
Use of optimization
systems of roadway flows |
The
transportation of goods to different countries in the World, as a task of
economic development, is an activity that has been largely used by the human
kind since the years of 1700 BC (LUN et al., 2016). Many countries have been
recently implementing their green activities related to port activities, especially
in countries with major ports and enough infrastructures to invest on it.
Such
as the Port of Tacoma in the United States that has been actively invested in
environmental protection by extending its definition of an environment which
includes everything in their port contexts such as a history of the place,
culture, people, and business. Japan has also been highlighted, especially due
to its port environment policies, where they went beyond the measure to make
ports just sustainable places with low impact on the environment, but they also
focused on making their ports places that are enjoyable and pleasant for people
(PARK; YEO, 2012).
It is
important to have a wide view of what is happening nowadays in the world,
regarding the different implementations of the concept of green port, because
through the literature review, as Allatar et al. (2006) said, each port is
unique in its sense. By studying different cases, it is possible to have
different perspectives, and by having different perspectives, it will be
possible to have a greater knowledge which will make it better when it comes to
making a case study, such as the Port of Santos, which is the goal of this
paper.
Acciaro
et al. (2014) give us a perspective on the importance of the energy management
in ports to get better energy efficiency. He mentions that many ports are
situated in places that are favorable for the implementation of renewable
sources in their different forms. Example of ports that take advantage of power
generation from wind-powered generation is the Port of Rotterdam in Netherlands
and the Port of Kitakyushu in Japan, ports that use of wave power such as Port
of Kembla in Australia and the Port of Mutriku in the Basque Country.
Also,
ports that take advantage of tide differentials, Port of Digby in Nova Scotia,
also ports that use geothermal energy such as the Port of Hamburg in Germany,
and also ports that make the utilization of solar energy especially to the
utilization in the administrative buildings, such as the Port of San Diego in
the United States and the Port of Tokyo in Japan.
Different
countries in the world implement their green port concepts in many ways. That
is what Lam and Notteboom (2014) bring with an example through their study
comparing three major ports in the world; these are: Port of Antwerp in
Belgium, Port of Rotterdam in Netherlands, Port of Shanghai in China and Port
of Singapore in Singapore.
Every
port applies the green port concept through different ways, but these four
ports apply practices that are equal or similar, and one example of practice
adopted by these ports is the reward and punishment scheme, especially related
to the need to get a better Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (LSFO).
Ships
with an emission level above allowed may suffer the application of penalties,
while ships with a good standard of emission may receive discounts at the port.
One of the most known schemes of rewarding ships that are being constantly
implemented by several ports is the Environmental Ship Index (ESI). It consists
of a calculation method to measure ship’s overall performance, and based on the
results discounts may be applied, for example, the Port of Antwerp offers a
three-year discount on tonnages for companies that are investing in ESI.
Also,
when implementing the green port concept, the author highlights that having a
carbon footprint is a good start, and all the four ports bring their carbon
footprint. The Port of Rotterdam has an outstanding program that captures the
carbon dioxide (CO2) and stores it below the North Sea. This port is also known
as the forefront port on the fight against the climate change. Together with
the Port of Rotterdam, the Port of Antwerp also aims to reach an out-standing
green status.
Both
ports prioritize the modal split of hinterland transport with barge transport
and rail transport instead of the road transport, in this term, they go ahead
to the Port of Shanghai and the Port of Singapore. Therefore those tendencies
make it clear that Europe had started to implement the green port concept earlier
than Asia. Nevertheless, the four ports have focused on the same activities,
prioritizing at first the ship traffic, followed by the cargo handling and
storage, port expansion and port industrial activities.
The
Port of Long Beach located in the United States is a model of green activities
for several countries in the World. In 2005, this port formulated the first
green policy, which consisted in initiatives that could positively contribute
to the environment (MARITZ and YEH, 2014).
Different initiatives are applied to this port, and among them, it is
possible to mention 3 of them, these are:
•
The utilization of low-sulfur fuel in the main
engines, as well as the incentive to the use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
•
The Green Flag Program. The ships arriving in Long
Beach were encouraged to reduce their speed when coming closer to the port, to
reduce air pollution. If the ship keeps that practice for 12 months, it gets
better dock charges and also the Long Beach Clean Port flag.
•
The Clean Truck Program. This program consists in the
prohibition of trucks manufactured before 1989. This program was implemented in
2008, and by 2012 the pollution levels were successfully reduced.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The
methodology used in this work was the bibliographic review on the subject and
semi-structured interviews in the Port of Santos. The bibliographic review is a
stage that brings knowledge subsidies and provides scientific support for the
research. This study was based on papers and scientific material on the green
port theme. Base on the existing literature, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with port managers. Open-ended questions were asked at the end of the
semi-structured interview to obtain further insights into the sustainable
development of the Port of Santos The theoretical reference was supported
basically by documentary and international journals.
Fieldwork
was also used in this study since data were collected from people who
contributed to the understanding of the problem and the application of
sustainable operations in the Port of Santos. Therefore, in general, we used
the exploratory research involving a bibliographical review, interview with
people with practical experiences with the subject and analysis of examples
that contribute to the understanding of the problem.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF THE PORT OF SANTOS
In
2016, the Port of Santos moved 2,358,220 containers out of 5,652,587 units,
corresponding to 41.72% of the national movement. The port of Santos is of
enormous importance for Brazilian import and export (GALVÃO, et al., 2016). All
types of cargo, solid bulk and liquid, are transported through it. According to
the World Shipping Council, the Port of Santos appears in the 39th position in
the 2015 Top Fifties World Container Ports.
Some
of the products transported are sugar, fertilizer, coal, sulfur, soybean meal,
corn, iron ore, soybeans, gasoline, caustic soda, citrus juices, alcohol, and
salt.
CODESP
has been seeking to implement an Environmental Management System in its administrative
units as a strategic decision. This system deals with the Environmental Audit
in Organized Ports, as well as, to obtain the international certification ISO
14001. The implantation of this system already is in progress. One of the most
important steps in this process is the establishment of CODESP's Environmental
Policy. This policy is CODESP's reference for the sustainable development of
its activities. Due to its importance, it may be widely disseminated to all
employees and outsourced personnel of the Company.
CODESP aims to:
•
Fully comply with current environmental legislation
and the standards defined by CODESP;
•
Efficiency in the provision of port services, having
as principle the conservation and environmental control;
•
Prevent pollution in all its forms;
•
Preserving the historical and cultural heritage of the
region;
•
Stimulating technological innovation in the search for
opportunities for business growth and continuous improvement of the
Environmental Management System; and
•
Promote the constant training and qualification of its
collaborators.
Even
operating 24 hours a day, the Port of Santos is the only one in Brazil to have
generation autonomy with its hydroelectric power plant. For 100 years, the
Itatinga Plant, located in Bertioga, supplies energy to port and is now 80% of
its demand. The Port of Santos also has an effluent treatment plant in Macuco,
serving the right bank and a water treatment plant located in Saboó, which also
supplies Barnabé Island.
The
supply of energy for own consumption and the various lessees served by the
system, is primarily from the Itatinga hydroelectric plant, with a capacity of
15 MW. The Alemoa Liquid Bulk Terminal is powered by CPFL - Companhia Paulista
de Força e Luz (an energy supply company in the state of São Paulo).
Towers
or poles of 10, 15 and 20 meters in height are responsible for the external
lighting. There are reflectors of 400W sodium vapor lamps, with a built-in
internal reactor or an external reactor, or on poles installed on the flaps of
the warehouses with reflectors of 2 sodium vapor lamps, controlled by counters
or photoelectric relays.
The
solid waste management plan of the Port of Santos is the guiding instrument and
mandatory compliance for all actors of the Organized Port. It consists of the
adequate management of solid waste produced in all activities carried out in
the Organized Port of Santos. The Environmental Management, along with the
Occupational Health and Safety Management is the management and observational
units of this Plan within the Organized Port of Santos.
The
Environmental Policy of the Port of Santos is the protocol of intentions to be
observed for the creation of the Environmental Management Systems of the
Organized Port of Santos. The Environmental Policies of each lessee must be
consonant with the Environmental Policy of the Port of Santos. Likewise, the
Environmental Management Systems of each lessee must foresee the synergy
between them and with the Environmental Management System of the Port
Administration.
5. CONCLUSION
The
Secretary of Ports (SEP), which is a Federal agency which has Ministry power,
needs to implement a public policy with methodological accuracy to monitor port
operations exhaustively and to allow public and private companies to invest in
technology and innovation, aiming international certification of Green Port.
The
Port of Santos studies the possibility of having a bulk terminal for solids
operating sustainably, reducing the traffic of trucks and using the railroad to
carry out the operations. The goal is to reduce by more than 600 a day
traveling through that region and thereby reduce the emission of polluting
gases and particulate matter into the atmosphere.
The
Port of Santos environmental priorities must be air quality, energy
consumption, noise, relationship with the local community, garbage-port waste,
ship waste, port development–land related, water quality, dust, and dredging
operations. It is necessary to be proactive in protecting the environment by
providing guidance and preparing recommendations on environmental management
(green guide), developing and promoting tools and methodologies for port
environmental management and identified environmental indicators to monitor
trends in environmental performance.
Acknowledgements:
Research
supported by grant 2015/00277-8 São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP); Funding
received from Federal University of ABC
REFERENCES
ACCIARO, M.;
GHIARA, H.; CUSANO, M. (2014) Energy management in sea ports: A new role for
port authorities. Energy Policy, v.
71, p. 4-12.
ALLATAR, M.;
KARKARE, B.; RAJHANS, N. (2006) Simulation of Container Queues for Port
Investment Decisions. The Sixth
International Symposium on Operations Research and Its Aplications,
p.155-167.
ANTAQ (2017) Retrieved from Agencia
Nacional de Transportes Aquaviários:
http://web.antaq.gov.br/Portal/MeioAmbiente_IDA.asp
BELFIORE, S.
(2003) The growth of integrated coastal management and the role of indicators
in integrated coastal management: introduction to the special issue. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 46,
p. 225-234.
BERGQVIST, R.;
ZANDÉN, N. (2012) Green port dues - The case of hinterland transport. Research in Transportation Business &
Management, v. 5, p. 85-91.
BICHOU, K.;
GRAY, R. (2005) A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying
seaports. Transportation Research Part A,
v. 39, p. 75-92.
CHANG, C.; WANG,
C. (2012) Evaluating the effects of green port policy: Case study of Kaohsiung
harbor in Taiwan. Transportation
Research D, v. 17, p. 185-189.
CHIU, R.-H.;
LIN, L.-H.; TING, S.-C. (2014) Evaluation of Green Port Factors and
Performance: A Fuzzy AHP Analysis. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, Article ID 802976.
CLEANSHIP, Clean Baltic Sea Shiping Report (2013).
http://www.clean-baltic-sea-shiping.com/uploads/files/CLEANSHIP_final_report_for_download.pdf.
Accessed 03/02/17.
DARBRA, R.;
RONZA, A.; CASAL, J.; STAJONOVIC, T.; WOOLDRIDGE, C. (2004) The Self Diagnosis
Method: A new methodology to assess environmental management in sea ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, v. 48, p.
420-428.
DARBRA, R.;
RONZA, A.; STAJONOVIC, T.; WOOLDRIDGE, C.; CASAL, J. (2005) A procedure for
identifying significant environmental aspects in sea ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, v. 50, p. 866-874.
DAVARZANI, H.;
FAHIMNIA, B.; BELL, M.; SARKIS, J. (2016) Greening ports and maritime
logistics: A review. Transportation
Research Part D, v. 48, p. 473-487.
GALVÃO, C. B.;
WANG, G. W. Y.; MILESKI, J. (2016) Public-Private Interests and Conflicts in
Ports: A Content Analysis Aproach. The
Asian Journal of Shiping and Logistics, v. 32, n. 1, p. 13-22.
HARTMAN, B. C.;
CLOTT, C. B. (2012) An economic model for sustainable harbor trucking. Transportation Research Part D, v. 17, p.
354–360.
KIM, J.; RAHIMI,
M.; NEWELL, J. (2012) Life-Cycle Emissions from Port Electrification: A Case
Study of Cargo Handling Tractors at the Port of Los Angeles. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, p. 321-337.
LAI, K.-H.; LUN,
V.; WONG, C.; CHENG, T. (2011) Green shipping practices in the shipping
industry: Conceptualization, adoption, and implications. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 55, p. 631-638.
LAM, J.;
NOTTEBOOM, T. (2014) The Greening of Ports: A Comparison of Port Management
Tools Used by Leading Ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Reviews, v. 34, n. 2, p. 169-189.
LE, X.-Q.; VU,
V.-H.; HENS, L.; HEUR, B. (2014) Stakeholder perceptions and involvement in the
implementation of EMS in ports in Vietnam and Cambodia. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 64, p. 173-193.
LI, J.; LIU, X.;
JIANG, B. (2011) An Exploratory Study on Low-Carbon Ports Development Strategy
in China. The Asian Journal of Shiping
and Logistics, v. 27, n. 1, p. 91-111.
LIAO, M.-S.;
DING, J.-F.; LIANG, G.-S.; LEE, K.-L. (2016) Key Criteria for Evaluating the
Green Performance of Ports. Journal of
Testing and Evaluation, v. 44, n. 4, p. 1791-1801.
LIRN, T-C.; WU,
Y-C. J.; CHEN, Y. J. (2013) Green performance criteria for sustainable ports in
Asia. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, v. 43 n. 5/6, p. 427-451.
LUN, V.; LAI,
K.-h.; WONG, C.; CHENG, T. (2016) Green
Ship Management: Shiping and Transport Logistics. Chapter 5. Springer
International Publishing Switzerland. First Edition.
MARITZ, A.; YEH,
S.-P. (2014) Innovation and Success Factors in the Construction of Green Ports.
Journal of Environmental Protection and
Ecology, v. 15, n. 3A, p.1255-1263.
PARK, J.-Y.;
YEO, G.-T. (2012) An Evaluation of Greenness of major Korean ports: A Fuzzy Set
Aproach. The Asian Journal of Shiping and
Logistics, v. 28, n. 1, p. 67-82.
PATRÍCIO, M. (2014) Diagnóstico
e proposta de modelo de avaliação operacional para automação em terminais de
contêineres no Brasil. Doctoral Thesis. Naval and Oceanic Engineering.
University of São Paulo, Brazil.
PAVLIC, B.;
CEPAK, F.; SUCIC, B.; PECKAJ, M.; KANDUS, B. (2014) Sustainable Port
Infrastructure, Practical Implementation of the Green Port Concept. Thermal Science, v. 18, n. 3, p.
935-948.
PERIS-MORA, E.;
OREJAS, J.; SUBIRATS, A.; IBÁNEZ, S.; ALVAREZ, P. (2005) Development of a
system of indicators for sustainable port management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, p. 1649-1660.
PNLP (2015). Executive Summary - Plano Nacional de
Logística Portuária.
PORTOPIA. (2017).
Retrieved from PORTOPIA: http://www.portopia.eu/
Accessed 09/09/17.
PUIG, M.; PLA, A.;
SEGUÍ, X.; DARBRA, R. (2017) Tool for the identification and implementation of
Environmental Indicators in Ports. Ocean
& Coastal Management, v. 140, p. 34-45.
PUIG, M.;
WOOLDRIDGE, C.; DARBRA, R. M. (2014) Identification and selection of Environmental
Performance Indicators for sustainable port development. Marine Pollution Bulletin, v. 81, p. 124-130.
ROH, S.; THAI,
V. V.; WONG, Y. D. (2016) Towards sustainable Asian port development:
challenges and oportunities for Vietnamese ports. The Asian Journal of Shiping and Logistics, v. 32, n. 2, p.
107-118.
ROMERO, A.;
ASMUS, M.; MILANELLI, J.; BURUAEM, L.; ABESSA, D. (2014) Self-diagnosis method
as an assessment tool for environmental management of Brazilian ports. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management,
v. 14, p. 637-644.
ROOS, E.; NETO,
F. (2016) Tools for evaluating environmental performance at Brazilian public
ports: Analysis and Proposal. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, v. 115, p. 211-216.
SCIBERRAS, E. A.;
ZAHAWI, B.; ATKINSON, D. J. (2017) Reducing shipboard emissions – assessment of
the role of electrical technologies. Transportation
Research Part D, v. 51, p. 227–239.
SEGUÍ, X.; PUIG,
M.; QUINTIERI, E.; WOOLDRIDGE, C.; DARBRA, R. (2016) New environmental
performance baseline for inland ports: A benchmark for the European inland port
sector. Environmental Science &
Policy, v. 58, p. 29-40.
TANG, J.;
MCNABOLA, A.; MISSTEAR, B.; CAULFIELD, B.; (2017) An evaluation of the impact
of the Dublin Port Tunnel and HGV management strategy on air pollution
emissions. Transportation Research Part
D, v. 52, p. 1–14.
VUJIČIĆ, A.;
ZRNIĆ, N.; JERMAN, B. (2013) Ports Sustainability: A life cycle assessment of
Zero Emission Cargo Handling Equipment. Journal
of Mechanical Engineering, v. 59, p. 547-555.
WALKER, T. R.
(2016) Green Marine: An environmental program to establish sustainability in
marine transportation. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, v. 105, p. 199–207.
YANG, Y.-C.
(2017) Operating strategies of CO2 reduction for a container terminal based on
carbon footprint perspective. Journal of
Cleaner Production, v. 141, p. 472-480.
YANG, Y.-C.;
CHANG, W.-M. (2013) Impacts of electric rubber-tired gantries on green port
performance. Research in Transportation
Business & Management, v. 8, p. 67-76.