GREENCRUISEPORTisanINTERREGVBproject,part‐financedbythe
EuropeanUnion(EuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFundandEuropean
NeighbourhoodandPartnershipInstrument).
GREEN CRUISE PORT ACTION PLAN
2030
Final Report
www.greencruiseport.eu
GREEN CRUISE PORT ACTION PLAN 2030
Final Report
Consultant:
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
http://www.hpc-hamburg.de
Authors:
Dr. Johannes Schmidt
Malte Steenbeck
Manuel Borsch
Dr. Stefan Hofmann
Dr. Madlen Kroh
Published February 2019
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 iii
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
1. BACKGROUND 1
1.1 Current Challenges in the Cruise Tourism Sector 1
1.2 Green Cruise Port Project 2
1.3 Fundamentals of Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 3
1.3.1 General Information – Green Port Action Plans 3
1.3.2 Overall Goals of Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 4
1.3.3 Focus of Action Plan 5
1.3.4 Structure of Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 and Procedure for the
Development 6
2. GREEN CRUISE PORT ACTION PLAN 2030 – STRATEGIC
PLANNING PHASE 9
2.1 Relevance of Green Cruise Port Action Plan 9
2.2 Stakeholders Involved 11
2.2.1 Project Partnership 11
2.2.2 Stakeholder Groups 12
2.3 Environmental Requirements and Rules 16
2.3.1 Air Emission Rules and Requirements 16
2.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rules and Regulations 20
2.3.3 Noise Rules and Requirements 22
2.3.4 Wastewater Discharge Rules and Requirements 24
2.3.5 Waste Management Rules and Regulations 25
2.4 Vision and Goals of Plan 25
2.4.1 Overall Vision 26
2.4.2 Goals of Action Plan 27
3. GREEN CRUISE PORT ACTION PLAN 2030 – OPERATIONAL
PLANNING 34
3.1 Emission Sources in Cruise Port 34
3.2 WP 2: Sustainable Energy Supply & Innovative Solutions for
Emission Reduction 36
3.2.1 Collection of Measures 36
3.2.2 Categorization of Measures 37
3.2.3 Evaluation of Measures 47
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 iv
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3.3 WP 3: Smart Cruise Terminal Buildings & Innovative Reception
Facilities 49
3.3.1 Collection of Measures 49
3.3.2 Categorization of Measures 51
3.3.3 Evaluation of Measures 64
3.4 WP 4: Smart Cruise Port Traffic Solutions & Economic Effects 66
3.4.1 Collection of Measures 66
3.4.2 Categorization of Measures 67
3.4.3 Evaluation of Measures 80
4. GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS 84
4.1 Overall Sustainability Goal 1 84
4.2 Overall Sustainability Goal 2 91
5. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS 95
6. LITERATURE 99
TABLE OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Projection of development of cruise passenger visits in the Baltic Sea
until 2025 1
Figure 2: Target groups of the Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 4
Figure 3: Expected results of Action Plan 5
Figure 4: Sustainability dimensions 5
Figure 5: Strategic and operational planning phase of Action Plan 6
Figure 6: Approach for identifying sustainability measures 7
Figure 7: Four phases of Green Cruise Port Action Plan 8
Figure 8: Drivers towards achieving more sustainable cruise port operation 10
Figure 9: Overview – Project partnership 11
Figure 10: The Baltic and North Sea SO
x
Emission Control Areas 18
Figure 11: Rules and regulations on noise in ports 23
Figure 12: Overall goals of Green Cruise Port Action Plan 27
Figure 13: Goals per project work package and contribution to overall goals of
Action Plan 33
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 v
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Figure 14: Emission sources of a typical cruise terminal and connection to project
WPs 35
Figure 15: Evaluation of measures – WP 2 48
Figure 16: Evaluation of measures – WP 3 64
Figure 17: Evaluation of measures – WP 4 81
Figure 18: Recommended next steps for the project partners 98
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Top 5 environmental measures II
Table 2: Top 5 economic sustainability measures II
Table 3: MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulfur limits 17
Table 4: MARPOL Annex VI NO
x
emission limits 20
Table 5: IPCC global warming potential values 21
Table 6: Overview of measures – Sustainable Energy Supply & Innovative
Solutions for Emission Reduction 37
Table 7: Overview of measures – Smart Cruise Terminal Buildings & Innovative
Reception Facilities 51
Table 8: Overview of measures – Smart Cruise Port Traffic Solutions & Economic
Effects 67
Table 9: Top environmental measures for cruise vessels 85
Table 10: Top environmental measures for cruise ports 88
Table 11: Top economic sustainability measures for the cruise sector 91
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Technical Inventory
CCV Closed Crankcase Ventilation
CHP Combined heat and power generation plants
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO
2
Carbon dioxide
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 vi
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
CO
2
e CO2-equivalent emissions factors
dB Decibel
DCV Demand-controlled ventilation
DPF Diesel particle filer
ECT Emission control technologies
EGR Exhaust gas recirculation
EMS Energy management system
GHG Greenhouse gas emissions
GT Gross tonnage
GWP Global warming potential
H
2
Hydrogen
HFO Heavy Fuel Oi
HVAC Heating, ventilation and air condition system
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt hour
LED Light-emitting diode
LNG Liquified natural gas
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
MDO Marine diesel oil
MGO Marine gasoil
NH
3
Ammonia
NO
x
Nitrogen oxide
nZEB Nearly zero energy building
OPS Onshore power supply
PM Particular matter
PV Solar photovoltaics
SCR Selective catalytic reduction
SO
x
Sulfur oxides
ULSD Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 vii
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Others
BSR Baltic Sea Region
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CHE Cargo handling equipment
CLIA Cruise Lines International Association
CSI Clean Shipping Index
ECA Emission Control Area
EEDI The Energy Efficiency Design Index
END Environmental Noise Directive
ESI Environmental Ship Index
EU MRV EU Monitoring, Reporting, Verification
EU European Union
GCP Green Cruise Port
HELCOM Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
IMO International Maritime Organization
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships
MEPC IMO Maritime Environment Protection Committee
NABU Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union
NSF No-Special-Fee
OPEX Operating Expenditure
PRF Port Reception Facility
SEEMP Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
STS Ship-to-ship
TTS Truck-to-ship
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 – Managemet Summary I
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Currently, the cruise industry in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) faces two main
challenges. In recent years, the cruise shipping sector in the BSR has grown
significantly and it is expected that this growth continues in future. Therefore, the
industry has to create the required structural conditions to accommodate the
expected increase of both ship calls and number of passengers. As the industry
continues to expand, however, this also raises questions and concerns about
sustainability and the effect of cruise ships on the environment. In particular, more
and more customers see cruise ships as one of the main waste and emission
producers of the world seas. Therefore, the cruise industry has to respond to these
environmental challenges and try to minimize negative externalities caused by
port and vessel operations in cruise ports in the most efficient way.
In order to meet these challenges, a cooperative and coordinated approach by
different seaside and landside partners in the BSR is required. Against this
background, the “Green Cruise Port” project has been initiated in 2016. The
overall goal of the project is to elaborate a multidimensional strategic approach
for a sustainable and qualitative future development of cruise shipping in port
areas. In the course of the project, several studies and workshops have been
carried out by the project partners to gather knowledge on how to reduce port and
cruise vessel related emissions in the port area and strengthen the economic
effects of cruise tourism.
The Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 at hand structured the knowledge
generated within the frame of the project – and in other related projects worldwide
– in a consistent way. As an output, the Green Cruise Port Action Plan provides
concrete and practical information on how to reduce the negative ecological and
social impacts of cruise port operations. Consequently, the Green Cruise Port
Action Plan will serve as an important tool and source of reference for the project
partners and all involved stakeholders, which are striving for a high level of
(environmental) sustainability.
As part of the operational planning phase, a comprehensive database has been
compiled, containing numerous measures to prevent or minimize ecological
damages from port and vessel operations and strengthen the economic effects of
cruise tourism. In the following tables, the Top-5 measures of each goal are
presented.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 – Managemet Summary II
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Table 1: Top 5 environmental measures
Measure Area Emission focus Evaluation
GHG
Air
Noise
Waste
Impact
Efforts
Vessel-related emissions
On-shore power supply Ship-port
interface
LNG bunkering facilities: truck-to-
ship
Ship-port
interface
LNG Vessel fuels
Energy efficiency measures Vessel
Exhaust silencers Vessel
Port-related emissions
Emission reduction target Whole port area
Obtain “green” energy Whole port area
Eco-driving lessons Pier & CHE
Waste fee reduction Whole port area
LED technology Terminal building
Table 2: Top 5 economic sustainability measures
Measure Impact on Evaluation
Seaward
accessibility
Landward
accessibility
Passenger
flows
Economic
effects
Cruise line
behaviour
Impact
Efforts
Provide adequate sign posting
Limit number of group sizes of land
excursions
Bring together local vendors and
shippin
g
lines
Establish “Green Port Fees”
Extend berth and pier infrastructure
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 1
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
1. BACKGROUND
This chapter highlights the relevance of the Green Cruise Port project and
the corresponding Green Cruise Port Action Plan, presented in this report.
1.1 Current Challenges in the Cruise Tourism Sector
In recent years, the cruise shipping sector in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) has
grown significantly. From 2000 to 2016, the number of passengers visiting the
Cruise Baltic destinations increased by an average annual rate of 9.9%. The most
current statistical data of the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
(Cruise Baltic Market Review, 2017) show that the number of passengers had
been reached 4.3 million in 2016 (from 1.1 mill. in 2000). At the same time, the
number of calls also increased from 1,453 in 2000 to 2,163 in 2016, representing
an average growth of 2.7% per year. The Baltic Sea Region had now become the
second largest area for cruise tourism in Europe, after the Mediterranean.
It is expected that the cruise tourism sector in the BSR will continue to grow
strongly for up to 7.6 million passengers in 2025, corresponding an average
annual growth rate of almost 5% (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Projection of development of cruise passenger visits in
the Baltic Sea until 2025
Source: UNICONSULT, 2013; updated 2018.
It is worth noting that not only the number of passengers and ship calls is
expected to grow but also the average dimensions of the current cruise fleet.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 2
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Furthermore, many actors in the cruise industry have committed to play an active
role in environmental protection and especially intent to tackle climate change.
This is particularly important since climate change and insufficient environmental
protection could have substantial negative impacts for the industry.
Improving sustainability in the cruise sector is also important in the light of
increased customer environmental awareness and increasingly strict
environmental regulations (see Section 2.3). In practice, it can be observed that an
increasing number of (cruise) port stakeholders (e.g. regulatory authorities)
demand a better management of negative externalities caused by port and vessel
operations. In particular, the regulation of port areas is becoming ever more
stringent in relation to sulfur nitrogen oxides. To sum up, protecting the
environmental and improving the level of sustainability will be more and more
fundamental for the continued success of the industry.
1.2 Green Cruise Port Project
In order to meet both challenges – accommodating
the growth in cruise passengers in the BSR and
improving the level of sustainability in the cruise
sector – and thus remain competitive in the long
term, a cooperative and coordinated approach by
different seaside and landside partners on a
transnational level in the BSR is required. Against
this background, the “Green Cruise Port (GCP) –
Sustainable Development of Cruise Port
Locations” project had been initiated in 2016. GCP embraces 20 partners,
including associated organizations, which represent port authorities, cruise lines, a
maritime research institute and a governmental body. Geographically it covers all
BSR countries and the neighboring North Sea.
The overall goal of the project is to elaborate a multidimensional strategic
approach for a sustainable and qualitative future development of cruise shipping
in port areas and wants to encourage investments and procedures for an
environmental-friendly cruise port infra- and superstructure in the Baltic Sea
Region as well as in smart traffic links to the public transport and supply systems.
To achieve this goal, the Green Cruise Port project concentrated on three content-
related work packages (WPs) – note that Work Package 1 is “Overall Project
Management and Coordination”:
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 3
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
WP 2: Sustainable Energy Supply & Innovative Solutions for Emission
Reduction;
WP 3: Smart Cruise Terminal Buildings & Innovative Reception Facilities;
and
WP 4: Smart Cruise Port Traffic Solutions & Economic Effects.
The GCP had been implemented from March 2016 to February 2019.
In the course of the projects, several sustainability initiatives of each WP had been
examined or even carried out by the project partners. Nevertheless, many
challenges persist, and these must be tackled together in a structured way. In
particular, the knowledge generated within the frame of the project (mainly in the
form of presentations or reports) and in other related projects worldwide needs to
be merged in a consistent way to provide a future guideline and framework for a
smart cruise port development in the BSR, in the following referred to as “Green
Cruise Port Action Plan 2030”.
The main goal of the Green Cruise Port Action Plan is to provide information on
how to reduce the negative environmental impacts of cruise port operations and to
succeed in balancing environmental challenges with economic demands.
1.3 Fundamentals of Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030
1.3.1 General Information – Green Port Action Plans
The Green (Cruise) Port Action Plan is a comprehensive plan used to address
sustainability, and in particular environmental, aspects from (cruise) shipping and
(cruise) port operations. Consequently, the Green Cruise Port Action Plan will
serve as important tool for the project partners, which are striving for a high level
of environmental, social and economic sustainability.
Such a program, as in this case, is generally established and implemented by a
port authority with input from local (in particular environmental) regulatory
agencies. The program should also be periodically evaluated and revised after the
initial implementation to ensure continued applicability. The commitment and the
endorsement from the upper level and collaboration from other stakeholders and
regulatory agencies are paramount for a successful Green Cruise Port Action Plan.
In order to develop a successful plan for an organization, it is important to shape
the plan to the organization’s needs and according to its capacity to meet those
needs. A viable work plan will recognize the extent to which an environmental
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 4
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
action is supported, either directly or indirectly, by an organization’s strategic
objectives, culture, and human and financial resources. One of the keys to the
successful development of an Action Plan is to engage stakeholders throughout
the sustainable action planning process, from the initial scoping of the plan
through implementation and monitoring.
1.3.2 Overall Goals of Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030
The Green Cruise Port Action Plan, as developed and presented in this report, will
provide a general framework for the partner’s sustainability policy in which the
most important medium and long-term goals are defined and set out in a basic
strategy, where appropriate including concrete measures.
In particular, the Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 is designed to support the
cruise industry to advance their sustainability practices. In doing so, the Action
Plan also presents all Green Cruise Port project partners the opportunity to engage
with stakeholders to demonstrate and ensure consideration of the strong potential
to provide substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and air
emissions at a local, regional and global scale.
The Green Cruise Port Action Plan presented in the following two chapters is
versatile; its benefits will be seen on different levels (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Target groups of the Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030
Source: HPC, 2019.
Overall, the Green Cruise Port Action Plan will support the cruise industry to
establish an environment-friendly port operation in accordance with social and
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 5
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
economic aspects. Based on this, many promising potentials are expected to arise
for the cruise industry, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Expected results of Action Plan
Source: HPC, 2019.
1.3.3 Focus of Action Plan
It is worth noting that the focus of the Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 is on
environmental sustainability while economic and social aspects – as part of the
whole sustainability concept – will also be considered.
Figure 4: Sustainability dimensions
Source: HPC, 2019.
The focus on environmental issues is due to the fact that most content-related
project work packages focus on environmental issues (Figure 4).
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 6
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
1.3.4 Structure of Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 and
Procedure for the Development
In general, an effective Green Action Plan should:
Set up an overarching sustainability vision,
Develop goals to identify how the vision will be realized, and
Develop a roadmap to achieve all goals.
This makes clear that a Green Action Plan includes two planning stages (see also
Figure 5): the strategic phase that involves the development of a sustainability
vision and corresponding goals as well as an operational phase in which concrete
measures will be proposed to reach the objectives defined.
Figure 5: Strategic and operational planning phase of Action Plan
Source: HPC, 2019.
Strategic Planning Phase
The Green Cruise Port Action Plan development process starts with the strategic
planning phase, which mainly aims to develop the overarching vision as well as a
set of goals addressing sustainability issues.
It is worth noting that a Green Cruise Action Plan should also involve specific and
quantitative objectives. However, setting concrete, ambitious but also realistic and
achievable objectives is a complex and long-term process in which several
partners needs to be involved. To set an emission-reduction objective, for
example, a detailed emission inventory and forecast must be available. At the
same time, the targets should be evaluated from the perspective of the policy
context at the local, regional, state and national levels. Moreover, it must be
ensured that the targets can really be achieved. The biggest challenge is that
several partners from different countries are involved in the Green Cruise Port
project, rendering it nearly impossible to set uniform objectives for all partners.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 7
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Therefore, the Green Cruise Port Action Plan will not develop concrete objectives
but overarching goals that support the vision.
In addition to developing the vision and a set of corresponding goals, the strategic
planning phase should also:
Present the relevance for the development of the Action Plan;
Identify the main internal (e.g. agencies for whom the plan is being
developed) and external (e.g. regional partners) stakeholders; and
Examine all relevant regulatory requirements and rules.
Operational Planning Phase
In the subsequent operational planning phase, specific measures for achieving the
defined objectives are proposed. Therefore, a broad range of promising measures
to improve a cruise port’s environmental but also economic and social
performance is identified and evaluated. The detailed procedure for providing
guidelines in how to improve the level of sustainability of cruise ports will be
based upon three steps, illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Approach for identifying sustainability measures
Source: HPC, 2019.
Based on this analysis, the most promising measures, namely those with a high
impact to effort ratio, can be identified. For cruise ports it seems sensible to first
implement measures with a high impact / effort ratio, i.e. measures having a high
impact on sustainability and, at the same time, requiring low effort for
implementation. It is worth noting the actual implementation of the plan as well as
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 8
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
all required activities to assess the plan’s performance is entirely within the
partner's scope of responsibility (shaded grey in Figure 7). Therefore, this
document will only consider the phases “Strategic Planning” and “Operational
Planning”.
Figure 7: Four phases of Green Cruise Port Action Plan
Source: HPC, 2019.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 9
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
2. GREEN CRUISE PORT ACTION PLAN 2030 –
STRATEGIC PLANNING PHASE
In the Action Plan, the vision and the most important (environmental)
sustainability goals are defined (strategic planning phase). In the center of
the Action Plan (operational planning phase), a broad range of measures is
identified that are suitable to improve the level of environmental
sustainability of the project partners.
2.1 Relevance of Green Cruise Port Action Plan
The relevance for the Green Cruise Port project and the resulting Green Cruise
Port Action Plan 2030 had already been briefly outlined in Chapter 1.
First of all, the partners not only need to accommodate the expected growth in the
number of cruise passengers but also the increasing ship sizes. As the industry
continues to expand, this raises questions and concerns about sustainability and
the effect of cruise ships on the environment due to the increasing size of the
cruise industry.
One of the reasons for this ambitious commitment is that an increasing number of
(cruise) port stakeholders – e.g. regulatory authorities or customers – demand a
better management of negative externalities caused by port and vessel
operations in (cruise) ports. Cruise line sustainability has become a concern for
environmental groups and governmental agencies due to pollution, sewage, and
harm to the seas. One of the consequences of this is that the regulation of port
areas is becoming ever more stringent e.g. in relation to sulfur and nitrogen
oxides. With regard to greenhouse gas emissions emitted by vessels, it can also be
expected that regulations especially in the EU, will become more stringent in the
future (see Section 2.3).
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 10
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
One particular challenge in this context that needs to be tackled is that more and
more customers see cruise ships as one of the main waste / emission producers of
the world seas. This perception could lead to significant image losses in the long
term. On the other hand, (cruise) port initiatives aiming to achieve an
environmental-friendly port operation could also lead to an improved corporate
image, which may be associated with direct and indirect benefits. As a positive
side effect, cultivating sustainable and green practices may also improve
productivity by providing a more pleasant work environment for employees. One
further reason of the cruise industry for a development towards sustainability is
the threat of climate change that is regarded as one of the defining challenges of
the 21st century. It must be considered that climate change could also have
substantial impacts on the cruise industry – e.g. as a result of sea-level rise or
sedimentation impacts. It is also worth noting that environmental sustainability
has become a promising means to improve profitability. For example, significant
energy saving potentials can be exploited (e.g. by adopting energy efficient
technologies) or unnecessary waste and noise can be efficiently avoided both
resulting in potential for cost-savings.
Ensuring a high level of sustainability in cruise ports may thus help to bring
ecological, economic and technological / operational advantages and can be
essential for obtaining a leadership position for ports (see Figure 8).
Figure 8: Drivers towards achieving more sustainable cruise port
operation
Source: HPC, 2019.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 11
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
2.2 Stakeholders Involved
As explained in Section 1.3 one of the keys to the successful development of the
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 is to first identify but also to engage all
relevant stakeholders throughout the development process. Among others, this
will lend credibility to the Plan. In general, the stakeholders can be defined firstly
out of the project partnership, but also from involvement of external stakeholders
during the project implementation.
2.2.1 Project Partnership
The project partnership differentiates between full members and associated
organizations (see Figure 9).
Figure 9: Overview – Project partnership
Source: HPC, 2019.
Full project partners are entities, which were involved continuously in the project
activities. Most of them are port authorities (1-8) in the BSR and neighbouring
North Sea area. This group for whom the plan is basically being developed was
supplemented by a research institute (9), especially in work package 4, and a non-
profit, state-controlled association (10) which represents the perspective and the
interests of different landside service providers in the cruise sector and different
cruise shipping companies. This group of partners can be understood as internal
stakeholders of the Green Cruise Port Action Plan.
Beside the full membership in the project there exists the status of an associated
partnership. Entities in such function expressed intention to follow the project
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 12
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
activities and outcomes continuously, to give consultative support and being
occasionally a part of project activities. The group of associated organizations
shows the engagement of three different stakeholder groups. Again, port
authorities (1-7) take over a significant share, but also cruise lines (8-9) and a
policy stakeholder on regional level (10) are represented. The members of this
group belong to the group of external stakeholders.
2.2.2 Stakeholder Groups
The structure of the partnership defines already five stakeholder groups (a-e),
supplemented by furthers external stakeholder groups (f-i) which were involved
occasionally during the project implementation:
a) Port Authorities and Terminal Operators;
b) Cruise Lines;
c) Research Institutes;
d) Branch Associations;
e) Policy stakeholders (on regional, national and EU level);
f) Technicians and Engineering Companies;
g) Public Authorities responsible for environmental issues and / or transport
(on local, regional or national level);
h) Intergovernmental and international Institutions; and
i) Public and private Transport Companies.
The role of each stakeholder group is described separately in the next paragraphs.
Port authorities and cruise terminal operators
The main stakeholder group of the project activities and the elaborated Green
Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 are port authorities and terminal operators
respectively. They enhanced their knowledge significantly by studies,
participation in workshops and best practice tours in respect to the project work
packages.
For further progress in the elaboration of the Action Plan, it is important to
understand the different port roles and functions as well as their respective impact
and influence on a port’s total energy consumption and emission output.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 13
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
In many ports around the world, the landlord model applies, in which the port
authority affects the port structure from a mainly political and regulatory
perspective (see Figure 9; Full Project Partner 1-2). Port operation is here carried
out by private (cruise) companies that lease the required infrastructure from the
authority and procure, operate and finance the superstructure required. Since port
authorities under the landlord model do not carry out port operations, their share
on a port’s total energy consumption is relatively low
1
. Although the port
authority is only responsible for a relatively small proportion of a port’s total
energy consumption, there is a broad range of, mainly indirect, measures to foster
sustainability in the whole port area, as explained in Chapter 3. Another
commonly used port model is the public service port (see Figure 9; Full Project
Partner 3-8). in which the port authority performs the whole range of port related
services, in addition of owning the infrastructure. Under this port model,
sustainability measures are easier to implement since the port authority also owns
and operates the (energy-intensive) superstructure, such as cranes or cargo
handling equipment.
Cruise terminal operators are usually profit-oriented, private companies that
carry out commercial and operational activities in the port. However, it must be
considered that many port authorities involved in the Green Cruise Project fulfil a
double role as port authority and terminal operator, as explained above. For the
two landlord port authorities, the relevant cruise terminal operators are:
a) CGH Cruise Gate Hamburg GmbH in Hamburg: operates three terminals
b) Riga Passenger Terminal Ltd. in Riga: operates three berths which are
dedicated to cruise ships.
Cruise lines
For the successful development and implementation of the Plan, the engagement
of cruise lines is essential. This can be explained with the fact that air pollutants
and energy consumptions in ports are primarily caused by ships; Gibbs et al.
(2014) found that emissions from shipping at berth are approx. ten times greater
than those from port’s own operations. Even though ships are owned or operated
by shipping companies, port authorities and the cruise port terminals can have a
significant impact on the reduction of ship emissions and energy consumption in a
port (see Section 3). In addition, cruise lines will have to cooperate with terminal
operators and port authorities in establishing appropriate port energy infra-and
1
Only few options exist to directly initiate sustainability measures on relatively energy-intensive cargo
handling equipment devices and cranes used in terminals.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 14
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
superstructure as well as common waste handling standards. The main cruise line
operators affecting the Green Cruise Port Action Plan are Aida and TUI Cruise,
e.g. they were involved into noise measurement studies in the port of Hamburg.
Together with other cruise lines (e.g. MSC Cruises, Royal Caribbean
International) they informed in project workshops about technical adaptations of
their fleets and expressed their willingness to cooperate more intensively with
terminal operators and port authorities in establishing appropriate port energy
infra- and superstructure as well as common waste handling standards.
Research institutes
Already in the development but also in the future progress of the implementation
of the Green Cruise Port Action Plan support from research institutes will be
required. Their analytical skills and scientific know-how helped, for example, to
develop respectively recommend standardized solutions or common approaches
for a sustainable cruise port development in a determined region. Exemplarily the
Maritime Institute in Gdansk as full project partner analyzed common standards in
the measurement of economic effects of cruise tourism and elaborated
recommendations concerning port dues strategies in order to attract cruise lines
with more environmental-friendly ships. Further external input came, for instance,
in workshops by presentations or participation in workshop discussions from the
KLU Kühne Logistics University, the University of Applied Sciences Wismar,
Tallinn University of Technology or the Maritime Academy in Gdynia.
Branch associations
Branch associations, e.g. CLIA Europe, Cruise Baltic or Baltic Port Organization,
bundle the interests and can be seen as mouthpiece of their members which are
involved into the cruise business. Sometimes they even act as mediating partner in
case of contrary opinions between their members. From Green Cruise Port
perspective, they were on the one hand competent branch representatives in
discussions and on the other hand they can be understood as multiplier of project
outcomes / results, informing their members about project findings and challenges
and can foster the implementation process of the Green Cruise Port Action Plan.
Policy stakeholders (on regional, national and EU level)
Policy stakeholders have been involved and informed by Green Cruise Port
project activities and outcomes about advisable future adaptations towards an
innovative and sustainable cruise port infrastructure. For instance, with a better
understanding of the economic importance of cruise tourism for the region they
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 15
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
will be much more willing to provide funds for investments in sustainable cruise
port infrastructure and superstructure.
Exemplarily, the participation or involvement of the Free and Hanseatic City of
Hamburg – Ministry of Economy, Transport and Innovation, the Ministry of
Infrastructure Development of the Kaliningrad Region, the Ministry of Tourism of
the Government of Kaliningrad Region, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Communication in Estonia, the Ministry of Environment in Estonia, the
Department of Tourism Office of the Marshall of Pomorskie Voivodeship and the
Ministry of Economics of Latvia at the workshops in Kaliningrad, Tallinn,
Gdansk or Riga can be highlighted. Additionally, the City of Oslo, vice major for
Business Development and Public Ownership, welcomed the Green Cruise Port
project during a best practice tour to learn about partner’s perceptions regarding
the future of electric power for cruise ships in ports. Last but not least Merja
Kyllönen (MEP), addressed views from the European Parliament in a speech
about environmental challenges of the maritime sector in the Baltic Sea to the
Green Cruise Port project partnership.
Technicians and engineering companies
Technicians and engineering companies are the planning entities and driving
forces for technical solutions directed to a sustainable development of cruise port
locations. In several project studies and workshops, e.g. regarding construction /
design of terminal buildings, noise measurement, provision of onshore power or
LNG bunkering, they brought in their technical know-how, but also enhanced
their own knowledge by discussions and experience exchange with Green Cruise
Port partners, especially port authorities, terminal operators or cruise lines.
Therefore, these companies can also play an active role in the implementation of
the Green Cruise Port Action Plan by spreading new gained knowledge about
environmental-friendly cruise port infra- and superstructure.
Intergovernmental and international institutions
The most important intergovernmental and international institutions to highlight at
this point are the IMO (International Maritime Organization) and HELCOM
(Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission).
They set the environmental and legal requirements for more clean shipping in
BSR. Thus, they build the base and describe the framework in which the Green
Cruise Port Action Plan can be developed and implemented. These entities were
not actively involved in the project activities, but their regulations and
recommendations had an essential impact on the project activities and the main
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 16
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
outcome, the Green Cruise Port Action Plan. The NABU (Nature and Biodiversity
Conservation Union) participated in the opening conference in the project and
addressed its requirements and expectations to the project development.
Public and private transport companies
Due to the growing numbers of cruise passengers and growing vessel sizes in the
Baltic Sea Region the handling / organization of passenger flows are becoming
more and more challenging. The improvement of processes and the organization
of the transport system in cruise port locations is a crucial issue. Cruise or ship
agents as well as tour operators play an essential role in providing, among other
things, transport services for shore excursions as well as for arrival and departure
of cruise tourists. Several companies, like Conference & Touring C&T, Sartori &
Berger, PWL Port Services, Baste & Lange, H. C. Röver, C&C Port Agency
Finland, GAC Finland Oy and others, participated in content-related Green Cruise
Port workshops to inform about their services and discuss transport challenges,
solutions as well as cooperation between transport means and companies in
respect to interoperability. The Green Cruise Action Plan will inform public and
private transport companies about the opportunities for their own future business
development by fostering a more diversified supply of sustainable traffic links /
solutions.
2.3 Environmental Requirements and Rules
In the following, the environmental rules and requirements affecting the cruise
industry in the BSR – and thus the Green Cruise Port Action Plan – are briefly
presented. Note that country-specific rules and regulations of the project partners
will not be examined in detail. It goes without saying the Green Cruise Port
project partners at least comply with existing environmental conventions. In
general, environmental issues from regulatory points include the following: air
and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, noise, water & sewage as well as waste.
It is worth noting that GHG, air and noise emissions in cruise ports arise from
different sources, i.e. from pier and cargo handling equipment (e.g. forklifts),
terminal buildings (e.g. lights), road traffic (e.g. busses) and cruise ships at berth
(see also Section 3.1).
2.3.1 Air Emission Rules and Requirements
It is important to distinguish air and GHG emissions. The main problems caused
by air gases occur close to the ground and produce direct health effects, such as
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 17
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
respiratory diseases. GHG refer to a number of gases that have direct effects on
climate change / global warming with significant implications for, among others,
sea level, retreat of glaciers or rainfall. Hence, air pollution can be (simplified)
defined as a local phenomenon, while GHG affect the whole of the atmosphere.
Although both air pollution and global warming are different concepts they are
related since, inter alia, one factor that is responsible for both phenomena is the
extraction and burning of fossil fuels (e.g. in ship or truck engines).
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulates international air
emissions from ships under Annex VI to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). In general, two sets of emission
and fuel quality requirements are defined here: (1) global requirements, and (2)
more stringent requirements applicable to ships in so-called Emission Control
Areas (ECA) that include both the Baltic Sea and North Sea. An ECA can be
designated for SO
x
and PM, or NO
x
, or all three types of emissions from ships.
Sulfur Oxides (SO
x
)
Sulfur oxides (SO
x
) are compounds of sulfur and oxygen molecules. It is a toxic,
colourless gas, which is directly harmful to human health. In addition, it causes
adverse impacts to vegetation, including forests and agricultural crops (for details
see: Baltic Ports Organization, 2017 and World Bank Group, 1998).
Rules and Requirements for Ships
SO
x
emissions of ships are regulated by MARPOL Annex VI that includes caps
on sulfur content of fuel oil to control SO
x
emissions and, indirectly, PM
emissions. The sulfur limits and implementation dates are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulfur limits
Date Sulfur Limit in Fuel [% m/m]
SO
x
ECA Global
2000 1.5
4.5
2010 1.0
2012
3.5
2015
0.1
2020 0.5
Source: MARPOL, 2018.
Special fuel quality provisions exist for SO
x
ECA (see Figure 10).
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 18
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Figure 10: The Baltic and North Sea SO
x
Emission Control Areas
Source: CR Ocean Engineering
In the currently enforced ECAs (i.e. the Baltic and North Sea) vessels are required
to use fuels not exceeding 0.1% sulfur. Alternative measures to reduce sulfur
emissions (such as the use of scrubbers) are also allowed. Additionally, under the
European Directive
2
, the allowable fuel sulfur in all European Union and
European Economic Area waters will be limited to 0.5% in 2020, consistent with
the recently-decided global sulfur cap.
Rules and Requirements for Non-Road and Road Vehicles
For non-maritime diesel fuel in the EU, the regulations requires since 2008 that
fuel sold in the European Union and several other European countries must
contain less than 10 mg/kg
3
. Thus, emissions from those diesel engines are
regarded as sulfur free (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD)).
Particular Matter (PM)
PM is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets suspended in the air, many
of which are hazardous. Particles less than 10 micrometres (PM
10
) in diameter
pose the greatest health problems while fine particles (PM
2.5
) are the main cause
of reduced visibility (dust, smoke or soot) (EPA, 2018).
Rules and Requirements for Ships
Although PM can have harmful effects on human health, such as respiratory.
cerebrovascular and cardiopulmonary diseases, so far there are no regulations
which directly regulate PM emissions from shipping. PM emissions are only
2
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32012L0033
3
EN ISO 20846, EN ISO 20847, EN ISO 2088
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 19
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
indirectly controlled through limitations on the maximum sulphur content allowed
in fuels used on board ships or through achievement of equal or superior levels
through the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems under MARPOL Annex VI.
It should be noted, however, that PM has recently received increasing public
attention. Consequently, politicians and environmental non-governmental
organizations are calling for action on this topic. This is also true for ships, as
these may operate close to populated areas or to arctic areas (DNV GL, 2017).
Discussion on reduction of PM from ships at IMO arose from the establishment of
a correspondence group during the 10th session of the Bulk Liquids and Gases
subcommittee. The outcome of the proceedings is still unclear.
Rules and Requirements for Non-Road and Road Vehicles
PM emission from on road traffic is regulated by the EURO standards.
EURO 6d standard limits PM emission from diesel fuelled cars to 4.5 mg/km.
EURO VI standard for trucks and busses (> 3.5 t) sets the limit to 10
mg/kWh.
For off-road machinery, the actual class VI of the 2004/26/EG policy limits
PM emission to 25 mg/kWh.
Nitrogen oxides (NO
x
)
Nitrogen oxide refers to a binary compound of oxygen and nitrogen, or a mixture
of such compounds. It gets primarily in the air from the burning of fuel. Among
others, NO
x
forms acid rains and contributes to nutrient pollution in coastal
waters. In addition to that, it may cause several health problems, such as
respiratory problems, cerebrovascular and cardiopulmonary diseases (for details
see: Baltic Ports Organization, 2017).
Rules and Requirements for Ships
NO
x
emissions of ships are also regulated by MARPOL Annex VI. The NO
x
emission limits of Regulation 13 apply to each marine diesel engine with a power
output of >130 kW installed on a ship. As presented in Table 4, NO
x
emission
limits are set for diesel engines depending on the engine maximum operating
speed (n, rpm). Currently, the Tier II emission limit is effective for engines
installed on a ship constructed after 1 January 2011.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 20
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Table 4: MARPOL Annex VI NO
x
emission limits
Tier Date NO
x
Limit [g/kWh]
n < 130 130 ≤ n < 2000 n ≥ 2000
Tier 1 2000 17.0 45 · n
-0.2
9.8
Tier 2 2011 14,4 44 · n
-0.23
7.7
Tier 3 2016* 3.4 9 · n
-0.2
1.96
Source: MARPOL, 2018.
The Tier III standard currently applies only to ships operating in ECA established
to limit NO
x
emissions. The ECA in the North and Baltic Sea will be enforced for
ships constructed on or after 1 January 2021 or existing ships which “replace an
engine with non-identical engines or install an additional engine.”
4
Tier III limits
are expected to reduce NO
x
exhaust by 80% in comparison to the present emission
level (World Maritime News, 2016).
Rules and Requirements for Non-Road and Road Vehicles
NO
x
emission from on road traffic is regulated by the EURO standards.
EURO 6d standard limits NO
x
emission from diesel fuelled cars to 80 mg/km.
The EURO VI standard for trucks and busses (> 3.5 t) sets the limit to 400
mg/kWh.
For off-road machinery, the actual class VI of the 2004/26/EG policy limits
NO
x
emission to 400 mg/kWh.
2.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rules and Regulations
Although CO
2
is the most influential GHG, there is a growing pressure to consider
other greenhouse gases and their contribution to climate change. In most studies,
CO
2
, CH
4
and N
2
O are the gases most commonly included within transport CO
2
-
equivalent (CO
2
e) emissions factors.
It is important to note that individual greenhouse gases vary in terms of their
effectiveness in influencing climate change (see Table 5). To account for this, the
gases are rated in comparison to the effectiveness of CO
2
, so they can be
compared. Each gas has been assigned a CO
2
equivalence (CO
2
e) number known
as its global warming potential (GWP), with CO
2
being equal to 1.
4
IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 71)
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 21
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Table 5: IPCC global warming potential values
Greenhouse gas Fourth Assessment Report Fifth Assessment Report
CO
2
1 1
CH
4
25 28
N
2
O 298 265
Source: IPCC, 2007 and 2013.
Greenhouse gas quantities are usually documented in the unit of tones, which is
also known as metric tons.
Rules and Requirements for Ships
Currently, the whole shipping sector is responsible for only about 2.5% of global
GHG emissions. Nevertheless, it is expected that shipping emissions will rise
considerably in the future. In detail, shipping emissions are predicted to double
from 2012–2050 and more than triple over 1990 levels, mainly due to the
increased transport demand (IMO, 2015). Therefore, there is widespread
agreement that the shipping sector also needs to reduce GHG emissions in future.
As a result of this, in 2011 MARPOL Annex VI also introduced mandatory
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in shipping
5
. The mandatory
instruments that are intended to ensure energy efficiency standard for ships are:
The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI): The EEDI is focused on CO
2
and is currently applicable only to new ships. It is a performance-based
mechanism that aims at promoting the use of less polluting equipment and
engines. It provides a specific figure for an individual ship design, expressed
in grams of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) per a ship’s capacity-mile (e.g. tonne mile).
The Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP): The SEEMP is an
operational measure that establishes a mechanism to improve the energy
efficiency of a ship in a cost-effective manner.
Both regulations apply to ships above 400 gross tons and came into force in
January 2013. In addition to that, the EU MRV (Monitoring, Reporting,
Verification) regulation entered into force on 1 July 2015 that requires ship
owners and operators to annually monitor, report and verify CO
2
emissions for
vessels larger than 5,000 gross tonnage (GT) calling at any EU port.
5
See Chapter 4 “Regulations on energy efficiency for ships”
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 22
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Despite these initiatives, it can be expected that emission regulations for ships,
especially in the EU, will become more stringent in future
6
. Partly as a response to
this, the IMO Maritime Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) established
in 2016 a roadmap for developing a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of
GHG emissions from ships.
Rules and Requirements for Non-Road and Road Vehicles
CO
2
emission of new built cars and pickups are regulated by EG Nr. 443/2009
and EG Nr. 510/2011.
The limit of average fleet emission per carmaker will be gradually reduced
from 120 g/km in 2015 to 95 g/km in 2020.
So far, no CO
2
regulations for trucks, busses or off-road machinery exist.
However, in May 2018, the European Commission presented a legislative
proposal setting the first ever CO
2
emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles
in the EU (European Commission, 2018).
2.3.3 Noise Rules and Requirements
Noise pollution has become an increasingly significant environmental issue in
many ports (ESPO, 2018). Port noise can be classified as industrial noise and
ports authorities are usually mainly responsible for noise emitted from within the
port boundaries both on shore and within the water area of the port.
On 18 July 2002, the Directive 2002/49/EC (Environmental Noise Directive -
END) entered into force which can be considered main factor contributing to the
ports increased focus on noise issues. The aim of the Directive is “to achieve a
high level of health and environmental protection…”, among others, by
“avoiding, preventing or reducing on a prioritized basis the harmful effects,
including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise.”. To reach this goal
the following actions shall be implemented progressively:
Determine the exposure to environmental noise, through noise mapping, by
methods of assessment common to the Member States;
Ensure that information on environmental noise and its effects is made
available to the public; and
Adopt action plans by the Member States, based upon noise-mapping results,
with a view to preventing and reducing environmental noise (…)
6
For details see: https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/aviation-and-shipping-emissions-in-focus
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 23
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
The Directive 2002/49EC applies to environmental noise to which humans are
exposed in particular, hence also for ports near residential areas. Vessels can be
considered as the most challenging noise source in ports. Until now, however,
noise emitting from vessels is not regulated internationally. In the SOLAS
regulations of the IMO
7
, there are rules set about noise on board of ships, but no
regulations are present for noise emissions to the surrounding area. As a result of
this, noise emissions from maritime traffic are only regulated on the national level
through the environmental permits of ports. Finding uniform and international
rules for vessel noise requires a common basis which does not exists for the
moment. Therefor the international project Neptunes (Noise Exploration Program
To Understand Noise Emitted by Seagoing Ships) developed a measurement
protocol, a classification for noise emitted from seagoing vessels and a best
practice guide. In addition, a noise label was developed and will be integrated in
the Environmental Ship Index (ESI) of the World Port Sustainability Program of
the IAPH.
A summary of regulations concerning noise in ports is compiled in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Rules and regulations on noise in ports
Source: Green Cruise Port, 2018g.
7
Code on Noise Levels of Board Ships
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 24
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
2.3.4 Wastewater Discharge Rules and Requirements
The discharge of raw sewage into the sea can create a health hazard. In addition,
sewage can lead to oxygen depletion and can be an obvious visual pollution in
coastal areas – this is a particular challenge for tourist areas.
Therefore, MARPOL Annex IV also contains a set of regulations pertaining to the
discharge of sewage into the sea from ships including:
Regulations regarding the ships' equipment and systems for the control of
sewage discharge;
The provision of port reception facilities for sewage (see next section); and
Requirements for survey and certification.
As such, the regulations prohibit dumping of untreated sewage into the sea within
a specified distance of shore. Detailed descriptions of the requirements can be
found in MARPOL Annex IV “Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships”.
It is worth noting that in July 2011, the IMO designated the Baltic Sea as a special
area for sewage from passenger ships. The decision entered into force on 1
January 2013 and introduced the following relevant requirements:
The discharge of sewage from passenger ships within a Special Area is
generally be prohibited under the new regulations, except when the ship has
in operation an approved sewage treatment plant which has been certified.
The sewage treatment plant installed on a passenger ship intending to
discharge sewage effluent in Special Areas should additionally meet the
nitrogen and phosphorus removal standard (…)
The discharge requirements for Special Areas in regulation IV for the Baltic Sea
Special Area shall take effect on 1 June 2019, for new passenger ships and on 1
June 2021 for existing passenger ships (see MEPC.275(69)). CLIA has set more
stringent policies for its members, setting a standard for no discharge of untreated
sewage anywhere. Detailed information can be found in “Waste Management Best
Practices and Procedures”.
8
8
https://cruising.org/about-the-industry/regulatory/industry-policies/environmental-protection/waste-
management
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 25
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
2.3.5 Waste Management Rules and Regulations
An adequate waste management in cruise ports is crucial for minimizing negative
environmental impacts of the cruise industry. In addition, the steadily rising
number of cruise passengers also leads to larger quantities of waste produced.
According to MARPOL 73/78 and the EU Directive 2005/59/EC ports are obliged
to provide adequate port reception facilities which must be adequate to meet the
needs of ships using the port, without causing undue delay. The EU Port
Reception Facility (PRF) Directive also requires:
Vessels to land the waste they produce during voyages to and between EU
ports to port reception facilities;
Ports to develop waste handling plans; and
Vessels to pay a mandatory fee for landing this waste and to notify the port of
what waste it has in advance of arriving in port
9
.
The most important IMO regulation concerning waste can be found in MARPOL
Annex V
10
that states that all plastics and other garbage produced from ships are
prohibited to be discharged in the sea. In addition, ships must have a garbage
record-keeping book onboard.
Some ports in the BSR (e.g. Port of Helsinki) also follow the “No-Special-Fee”
(NSF) system even before the EU Directive 2005/59/EC. The system, developed
Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) in 1998, is defined as “a charging system
where the cost of reception, handling and disposal of ship-generated waste…is
included in the harbor fee or otherwise charged to the ship irrespective of
whether waste are delivered or not”
11
. Hence, the waste management fee imposed
on a ship should be independent of the volume of the wastes delivered to the port
reception facilities.
2.4 Vision and Goals of Plan
Establishing a vision and a corresponding set of goals is critical to the
development of the Green Cruise Port Action Plan:
9
The mandatory fee ensures that a ship can land its waste and that waste is not discharged into the sea,
however, the amount and type of wastes that can be delivered in each port vary.
10
Pollution by Garbage from Ships
11
HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 26
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
The vision will paint a picture of where the partners want to be in terms of
sustainability and has a long-term timeframe (Section 2.4.1);
The corresponding goals will identity how the vision will be realized; the
goals developed will be mostly qualitative (Section 2.4.2); and
Based on the goals developed, specific measures will be suggested in the next
planning phase (operational phase) to achieve the objectives (Chapter 3).
2.4.1 Overall Vision
The cruise shipping sector in the BSR has grown significantly in recent years and
the industry (and project partners) intends to grow further in the future. In order to
create the necessary conditions for a further growth in the long term, however, the
cruise industry must not only expand its capacities but especially respond to
sustainability challenges. This is especially important in the light of climate
change, an increasing public awareness of environmental responsibilities and
increasingly strict environmental regulations (see Section 2.3). Against these
challenges, the Green Cruise Port project partners pursue the following vision:
Decouple growth in the BSR cruise port industry from negative sustainability, and
especially environmental, impacts that result from port and vessel operations.
This demonstrates clearly the project partners are fully aware that an insufficient
level of sustainability could not only have substantial impacts on nature, society
and economy as a whole but also on their operations. Consequently, the partners
are seeking to anticipate and respond proactively to these challenges.
It is important to note that the project partners recognize that sustainability does
not only include environmental but also social and economic aspects. Therefore,
the partners not only commit to protect the environment but also the health and
safety of their employees and customers while also to operate profitably in the
long term. Nevertheless, the project partners committed to initially focus on the
protection of environment within the frame of the project and the Action Plan.
Inflamed by the vision, the project partners are striving to take a leadership role in
sustainability and create the necessary conditions to remain competitive in the
long term and establish the conditions for growth.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 27
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
2.4.2 Goals of Action Plan
To realize the vision defined, the project partners pursued two concrete main
objectives that contribute in shaping the conditions for further growth in the cruise
(port) industry in the BSR:
Goal 1: Ensure to meet growing sustainability requirements and reduce negative
externalities caused by port and vessel operations in cruise ports.
Goal 2: Accommodate the projected growth in the number of cruise passengers as
well as the steady increase in vessel size in the long term and strengthen
sustainable economic effects.
Within the frame of the project, three corresponding work packages have been
defined and performed to reach these strategic goals (see Figure 12).
Figure 12: Overall goals of Green Cruise Port Action Plan
12
Source: HPC, 2019.
As explained in Section 1.2, each work packaged defined and performed within
the frame of the project contributed in different ways to the achievement of the
project goals. In the following, the respective objectives of each WP (2-4) are
presented.
12
WP 1is project management and administration.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 28
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
2.4.2.1 WP 2 – Sustainable Energy Supply & Innovative Solutions for
Emission Reduction
WP 2 of the Green Cruise Port project directly contributes to the achievement of
the first overall project goal. In detail, various initiatives have been executed to
identify measures in how to reduce or avoid harmful emissions caused by cruise
vessel in ports, inter alia, by providing environmentally-friendly and innovative
port supra- and infrastructure. As revealed in detail in Section 2.3, different kinds
of emission need to be distinguished. Consequently, the following sub-goals have
been pursued.
Avoid or reduce cruise ship GHG and air emissions in ports
Climate change has recently received more attention in the shipping sector, partly
due to the fact that shipping is one of the fastest growing sectors in terms of GHG
emissions (see Section 2.3.1). Alike, the contribution of ships and port operations
to air pollution in port cities has become more important (see Section 2.3.2). In
many cities, ships are now among the largest sources of air pollution. Because of
these facts, WP 2 places a strong focus on reducing or even avoiding both GHG
and air emissions emitted by vessels in ports.
Avoid or reduce ship noise emissions in ports
Noise has become a highly discussed issue when it comes to cargo handling and
shipping operations in port areas. One of the reasons is that noise can be directly
noticed by residents of port surrounding neighbourhoods
13
. Although some noise
may be unavoidable, it can often be controlled using improved work practices.
Against this background, another main goal of WP 2 is to find measures in order
to reduce or even avoid noise emissions emitted by vessels in cruise ports.
2.4.2.2 WP 3 – Smart Cruise Terminal Buildings & Innovative Reception
Facilities
Like the previous work package, this WP also directly contributes to the project’s
first main goal. Contrary to WP 2, however, this WP focuses on measures to
reduce emissions emitted by cruise terminal buildings (including cargo handling
equipment) and not by vessels. To provide another valuable contribution to
sustainable development of the cruise sector in the BSR, the following two
objectives are being pursued in this WP.
13
For details see Section 2.3
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 29
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Increase recycling rate of cruise port terminals / Improve waste
management
Analogous to the increase of passenger numbers, the amount of waste being
produced on board cruise ships is rising. On average one cruise passenger
generates over 1 kg of solid waste per day (Svaetichin, 2016). The cruise ship is
responsible to minimizing the production of waste and the proper sorting on
board. In general, the disposal of waste should always be the last option and waste
should always be recycled, if possible. Against this background, one of this WP’s
main goals is to increase the recycling rate of cruise port terminals and improve
the waste management system.
Reduce energy consumption / emissions from terminal operations
Energy efficiency is becoming more interesting for ports and terminals as they
realize that substantial energy savings and thus cost-saving potentials can be
obtained, e.g. through rationalization of operation or adoption of new
technologies; improving energy efficiency is also the easiest way to reduce GHG
emissions and air pollutions. Further, terminals and ports can also produce
electricity generated from renewable energy sources itself to reduce emissions but
also energy costs. Consequently, WP 3 also tries to find innovative ways to reduce
a (cruise) terminal’s energy consumption and emission levels in a cost-efficient
manner, without restricting operational performance.
2.4.2.3 WP 4 – Smart Cruise Port Traffic Solutions & Economic Effects
The cruise industry is among the foremost drivers of growth in the tourism sector
and has experienced strong increases in recent years. In 2017, CLIA operated
more than 449 ships with another 27 expected to debut in 2018. With ship sizes
also being on the rise, it is projected that the number of global ocean cruise
passengers will surpass the 27 million mark in 2018, compared to 18 million in
2009. During the year 2017, around 11.3% of the industry’s bed capacity was
thereby assigned to the Baltic Sea market and European regions other than the
Mediterranean (CLIA, 2017). The stated numbers give an impression of the
challenges and opportunities arising from the cruise industry’s development for
ports of call and cruise destinations worldwide. With regard to sustainability and
with the cruise sector representing an increasingly important economic factor for
many destination cities and regions globally, these go far beyond issues directly
related to ship handling and cruise terminals operations in the port areas. While
increasing ship sizes are new nautical requirements regarding seaside access, it is
the growing number of cruise passengers per call that demands new solutions
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 30
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
regarding land side access of terminal sites, passenger mobility and management
of passenger flows. To tackle these challenges and strengthen sustainable
economic effects of cruise tourism in destination cities and regions five objectives
(sub-goals) are being pursued in this WP. Note that all of this WP`s objectives
directly contribute in different ways to the achievement of the project’s second
main goal.
Provide solutions for nautical challenges and for a sustainable seaside
access of cruise terminals
In recent years, new-build cruise ships have frequently defined new standards
with regard to ship size and passenger capacity. These developments, in turn,
come along with new requirements specifications regarding cruise port
infrastructure and cruise terminal operations. While landside infrastructure has to
accommodate for larger numbers of passengers, seaside access and nautical
requirements at terminal locations must be designed in order to allow for safe
navigation of very large cruise ships. While some cruise ports may have to adapt
existing nautical infrastructures, such as yard basins, to allow for larger vessel
sizes, new developments of adequate berthing places may be required elsewhere.
In light of these challenges, WP 4 aims to identify solutions for a sustainable
development of adequate seaside access to cruise terminals.
Improve landside accessibility of cruise terminals & Provide solutions for
sustainable public transport to and from the cruise terminals
In view of more frequent cruise ship calls, rising passenger numbers and new
cruise terminals that are not always located in direct walking distance to city
centers or tourist sights, landside access for cruise terminals becomes an ever
more important aspect. Different challenges may thereby apply depending on the
port of call: while cruise ports serving the change-over of passengers are faced
with growing requirements on transport links with airports and rail stations,
focused information and reliable transport services for cruise passengers that do
not take part in organized excursions are needed in stopover destinations. In both
cases, capable links of cruise terminals to the landside traffic infrastructure and
coordinated logistics services are required. WP 4 thus addresses these
requirements and provides sustainable approaches to transport solutions and smart
traffic links for landside access of cruise terminals.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 31
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Manage the growing passenger flows from cruise port operations & Provide
solutions for sustainable mobility in cruise port cities
Cruise passenger flows constitute an increasingly important aspect not only for
smaller or medium-size destinations. Growing numbers in cruise ship visits along
with increases in ship sizes do thereby not only induce landside traffic but can
also lead to other bottlenecks that may have a negative impact on the quality of
stay. Large numbers of tourists visiting certain sights at the same time can cause
tourism crowding that does not only impair the visitors’ experience but may also
lead to waning support for cruise tourism among the local public. Hence, project
work within WP 4 aims to develop and propose applicable solutions and
approaches for a coordinated management of passenger flows in destination
regions.
Demonstrate positive economic effects from cruise tourism
The cruise industry contributes significantly to economic development both on
local as well as on regional and national levels. As for the year 2016 the industry’s
worldwide output is estimated at around USD 126 billion, with more than 1.0
million jobs and USD 41.1 billion in wages and salaries depending on the cruise
sector (CLIA, 2017). Although cruise tourism differs from traditional tourism in
the way that production factors can be sourced from various countries, a
significant part of the economic value added usually remains within destination
cities and regions, e.g. through tourist expenditures and the purchase of supplies
by cruise lines. While different studies provide estimates on the sector’s regional
economic effect on port cities and destinations in the Baltic Sea and beyond,
results can vary due to different methodological approaches employed. Based on
the objective of substantiated and comparable results, another project work in WP
4 aims at the development of common standards for the measurement of economic
effects by cruise tourism.
Change cruise line behaviour towards a greener port stay
Being among the drivers of recent growth in the tourism sector, the cruise industry
does not only help to raise the level of awareness for certain tourist destinations
but also contributes to regional economic development. At the same time, the
cruise sector can also pose an environmental burden on port cities. In order to
mitigate the environmental impact, the Green Cruise Port project also focused on
the identification, development and adaptation of organizational and technical
measures for sustainable cruise tourism in the BSR and beyond. While some
actions are technically feasible, they may be subject to investments or financial
expenses on part of the cruise lines. In ports throughout the world, differentiated
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 32
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
port dues and green port fees are thereby used as a market-based mechanism to
incentivize cruise lines to adapt sustainable technologies and use green port
facilities. In order to strengthening these efforts, WP 4 also aims to provide
common a guideline for the sustainable configuration of port tariff systems.
2.4.2.4 Summary – Goals per Project Work Package
As presented in Figure 13, each of the three work packages’ defined goals directly
contributes to achieve the ambitious but achievable main goals of the Action Plan.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 33
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Figure 13: Goals per project work package and contribution to overall goals of Action Plan
14
Source: HPC, 2019.
14
Note that the green and gray shaded sub-goals contribute to both of the Action Plan’s overall goals.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 34
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3. GREEN CRUISE PORT ACTION PLAN 2030 –
OPERATIONAL PLANNING
As part of the strategic planning phase of the Action Plan (Chapter 2), the
overall sustainability vision of the partner had been presented and
corresponding goals been developed. In this chapter, specific measures on
how to improve the level of (environmental) sustainability of cruise ports –
and thus achieve the long-term objectives defined – are proposed.
3.1 Emission Sources in Cruise Port
In the following three sections, a broad range of promising measures to especially
improve the port’s environmental but also economic and social performance is
identified and evaluated, using a structured approach (see Section 1.3.4).
As explained in the previous chapter, the focus of the Green Cruise Port project is
on environmental aspects. Hence, most measures suggested are designed to
mitigate the environmental impact of cruise port operations, primarily by reducing
emissions in the port area. In doing so, it should be considered that there are
various emission sources in (cruise) ports. GHG, air and noise emissions from a
cruise terminal typical arise from:
Cruise ships at berth: emissions from ships in ports mainly result from
15
(World Ports Climate Initiative, 2010);
- Auxiliary power systems that provide electrical demands during ship
operations,
- Auxiliary boilers which produce hot water and steam for use in the engine
room and for crew and passenger amenities and
- Ventilation systems (only noise).
Pier and cargo handling equipment: in cruise ports, cargo and luggage
handling is usually conducted by a small number of forklifts and mobile
cranes (both mainly diesel-driven);
Road (external) traffic: resulting from passenger arrival and departure as
well as cargo supply (among others tank trucks); and
15
Note that propulsion engines are usually switched off during hotelling (ship is either docked at a berth or
anchored).
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 35
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Terminal buildings: the major energy user of a cruise terminal is usually the
heating, ventilation and air condition system (HVAC).
It is important to note that in “Green Cruise Port, 2018g”, it was found that air and
GHG emissions of the cruise terminal itself are comparably low in contrast to the
cruise ship at berth. On the other side, noise emissions from cruise ships are
already very low due to noise restrictions on deck for the comfort of passengers.
As a result of the large amount of emission sources, the Green Cruise Port project
had been subdivided into several WPs, each with a focus on individual emissions
sources (see also Figure 14):
WP 2 aimed to reduce emissions that result from vessel operation;
WP 3 concentrated on measures to reduce emissions that result from terminal
buildings as well as pier and cargo handling equipment; and
WP 4 reveals measures to reduce emissions that result from supply and
passenger traffic.
Figure 14: Emission sources of a typical cruise terminal and
connection to project WPs
16
Source: Green Cruise Port, 2018g.
16
WP 1is project management and administration.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 36
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3.2 WP 2: Sustainable Energy Supply & Innovative Solutions for
Emission Reduction
3.2.1 Collection of Measures
As reveled in the previous section, sustainability issues in cruise ports have to be
addressed on two different areas, on the water side (vessel operation) and on the
land side (port operation). Within the frame of the Green Cruise Port project, WP
2 aimed to reduce or mitigate emissions and waste from cruise vessels in cruise
ports (see also Section 2.4.2).
As part of the project, a broad range of detailed studies and workshops on this
issue have been carried out. One study published by Bergen og Omland
Havnevesen and DNV GL comprised the business cases for establishing onshore
power supply (OPS) for selected cruise ports. The analysis shows that all ports
have a substantial need for investment support to cover the running costs for OPS
– both in the shore to grid and LNG-power-barge case (Green Cruise Port, 2018a).
Another study of this WP, carried out by the HPA and DW-ShipConsult,
identified the different emission sources in a cruise terminal. It was found out, for
example, that the cruise ship at berth is by far the largest air and GHG (not noise)
emissions source on the terminal. In addition, diverse emission mitigation
measures have been identified and evaluated (Green Cruise Port, 2017g). In
another interesting study published within this WP, LNG as an alternative fuel for
maritime vessels had been assessed, inter alia, by examining LNG supply chain
and bunkering options and creating several business cases. A detailed comparison
of differing bunkering models for ports had also been compiled (Green Cruise
Port, 2017e). Two further studies of this WP provided valuable insights on noise
emissions that result from vessel and port operations (Green Cruise Port, 2018d
and Green Cruise Port, 2018q). In addition, a broad range of project-related
workshops on this issue have been performed in the course of the project.
In the following section, the resulting (sustainability) measures identified are
compiled and described. In order to gain an even more comprehensive overview,
also external studies and publications are considered in the analysis. To this end,
scientific publications (e.g. Gibbs et al., 2014: The role of sea ports in end-to-end
maritime transport chain emissions) other project reports (e.g. Swiftly Green,
2015), manufacturers' brochures (e.g. from Becker Marine System) as well studies
published by renowned institutions (like the “World Ports Climate Initiative”)
have been considered.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 37
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3.2.2 Categorization of Measures
Based on the workshops held and concept studies elaborated during the Green Cruise Port project as well as taking further secondary
sources into account, a total of 23 measures have been identified for the scope of work package WP 2. The measures that are summarized
in Table 6 below have in common that they support the overall objectives of work package WP 2 (see Section 2.4.2). In the following, the
derived measures are thereby categorized according to the aforementioned objectives.
Table 6: Overview of measures – Sustainable Energy Supply & Innovative Solutions for Emission Reduction
# Action Description Responsibility Source
Ob
j
ective:
A
void or reduce ship GHG and air emissions in ports
Ship-port interface
1 On-shore power
supply (OPS)
Onshore power (OPS) is one possible technology to avoid GHG, air and noise pollutions
from (cruise) vessel located at berth. This stationary technology allows vessels at berth to
use shore power rather than rely on electricity generated by their own (auxiliary) engines
that emit GHG and air emissions, affecting local air quality and ultimately the health of both
port workers and nearby residents. While local air emissions can nearly be eliminated, the
actual GHG emission reduction potential depends on the electricity generation mix of the
grid. According to SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (2017), shore-based power, as an
alternative to on-ship power, would also result in a noise reduction of up to 10 dB(A).
Economic issues are the largest challenge of OPS. First of all, high investment, between 5
and 25 million € per installation, are required to realize OPS in ports, mainly related
transformer stations, frequency converters, cable management systems and grid extension.
Furthermore, suitable equipment on ships is required, such as connection panel and control
systems or on-board transformers, ranging from 300,000 – 1.75 million € per vessel,
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018a;
DNV GL, 2017;
HPA, 2018; SLR,
2017
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 38
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
depending on type and size. Finally, the profitability is strongly dependent on local electricity
and fuel prices as well as on the number of calls per year. Mobile facilities are also possible
but much more expensive to establish and operate than stationary OPS facilities.
2 LNG PowerPac Another innovative solution to reduce a cruise ship’s emission at berth can be the so called
“LNG PowerPac”, developed by Becker Marine Systems. An LNG-fueled generator located
in a mobile container allows vessels to switch off their auxiliary engines while the ship is
docked. The LNG PowerPac can be placed on the vessel as well as on shore and is
capable of delivering power supply of up to 30 MW. The Becker LNG PowerPac weighs 60
tons. Currently the system is tested for container vessels in Hamburg. The emission
reduction potential is similar to the mobile LNG barge solution.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018e;
Becker Marine
System, 2018
3 LNG bunkering
facilities: truck-
to-ship (TTS)
To use LNG as fuel for vessels (see “Alternative Fuels” below), port authorities or operators
need to establish the required LNG infrastructure and superstructure (e.g. bunkering
options). The easiest to implement and most flexible solution is direct LNG truck-to-ship
option. The mobile facility arrives at a prearranged transfer location and provides hoses that
are connected to the truck and to the vessel moored at a dock. Piping manifolds are in place
to coordinate fuel delivery from one or more fuel storage tanks. One of the main advantages
of truck-to-ship bunkering is the limited investment (approx. 200,000 €/ LNG truck trailer) for
operators. The trucks can also be used for LNG distribution for other purposes. The main
drawbacks of LNG bunkering by means of TTS bunkering for large consumers is the limited
capacity of trucks as well as the slow flow speed. Several design alternatives are possible,
each with their specific advantages and disadvantages (see Green Cruise Port, 2018e).
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018e;
WPCI, 2018
4 LNG bunkering
facilities: shore
to ship
Vessels arrive at a waterfront facility (tank or small station) designed to deliver LNG as a
fuel to the vessel. Fixed hoses and cranes or dedicated bunkering arms may be used to
handle the fueling hoses and connect them to the vessels. The transfer usually occurs on a
pier or wharf and the LNG will be supplied via truck or vessel. The main advantages of the
system are the large bunkering volume and high bunkering flow speed. Furthermore, the
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018e;
WPCI, 2018
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 39
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
system is ready for bunkering when required. In addition, the station can be automatized.
However, high investment in tanks and bunker stations are required and sufficient space
has to be available in the port. Consequently, this bunkering option is generally a good
option for ports with stable, long-term bunkering demand. Several design alternatives are
possible, each with their specific advantages and disadvantages (see Green Cruise Port,
2018e).
5 LNG bunkering
facilities: ship-
to-ship (STS)
Ship-to-ship bunkering can take place at different locations: along the quayside, at anchor or
at sea. Because of size limitations in some ports, only smaller bunkering vessels will be able
to operate in the port area. The solution makes it possible to bunker large LNG volumes with
a high flow rate without occupying terminal space on land. In addition, compared with other
bunkering methods, the flexibility of ship-to-ship bunkering is high with respect to capacity
and bunkering location. However, the high investment for bunker vessels are considered to
date as the main barrier. Nevertheless, this bunkering option is expected to become the
main bunkering method for ships with a bunker demand of over 100 m
3
.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018e;
WPCI, 2018
6 LNG bunkering
facilities: local
liquefaction plant
In principle, it is also possible to establish an LNG production site on a port`s premises. This
would reduce the space for storage tanks and could also offer new sources of revenue and
competitive advantages. In addition, local production can secure the supply at a shorter
delivery time regardless of road conditions, traffic or terminal occupancy. However, the
investment for building the plant is very high (according to the Green Cruise Port Study
listed approx. 35 million €) and sufficient demand needs to be available to make the plant
commercially viable.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018e;
WPCI, 2018
7 Mobile LNG
barge
Alternatively to OPS, mobile LNG barges can be deployed in ports to reduce a cruise ship’s
emissions at berth. An LNG barge works like a floating power plant that generates power for
vessels using a gas container filled with LNG. In winter, LNG barges can also be used as
heat plants. The LNG barge can be designed to provide power to more than one cruise ship
at the time. The operation is relatively silent compared to a diesel engine. In addition,
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018e;
Becker Marine
System, 2018;
Anderson et al.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 40
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
compared to conventional marine diesel, an LNG barge emits almost no sulfur and PM.
According to manufacturer’s specification, the use of LNG also results in 20% less CO
2
and
almost 90% less NO
x
per ship call. It is worth noting that the actual GHG emission reduction
potential is relatively low due to the emissions of unburnt methane of exhaust gases
(methane slip). In addition, the vessel’s auxiliary boilers cannot be turned off completely. An
LNG barge can be owned and operated by the port authority or by a third party. The
investment can be broken into the power barge itself and the required onshore distribution
(e.g. cable management). The total investments for this solution are approx. 16 million € of
which about 80% are for the barge. Annual operational cost is estimated at around 0.25
million € per year. In a comprehensive study conducted within the frame of the Green Cruise
Port project (Green Cruise Port, 2018a), it was found that the mobile LNG barge is probably
the economic more viable solution compared to OPS.
2015
8 Automated
mooring
systems
Automated mooring systems are solutions that allow a quicker mooring with a requirement
for only one operator. With such systems, vessel emissions are reduced since mooring
operation time is reduced to a few seconds only. Engines can be shut off approximately half
an hour earlier. However, the total emission reduction potential is low since emissions from
maneuvering operations only represent a small fraction of a vessel’s total emissions in ports.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Gibbs, 2014
Exhaust gas treatment systems
9 Diesel particle
filer (DPF)
This is the devise used at the back of diesel engines on the exhaust gases path to trap the
particulates and prevent them from leaving the engines. Through the installation of DPF in
vessels, PM and black carbon can almost be eliminated while noise can also be reduced
significantly by up to 30 dB. Further emission reductions can be achieved by combining DPF
with SCR systems (see below). To use DPF, however, low sulfur fuels needs to be used.
The main challenges of DPF are the huge investment and additional maintenance costs that
range from 100-160 €/kW as well as the resulting higher fuel consumption of up to 5%.
Furthermore, according to the CLIA, there are no ultra-fine particular filters currently on the
Cruise lines Green Cruise
Port, 2018g;
IMO, 2016
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 41
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
market befitting of cruise ships.
10 Selective
catalytic
reduction system
(SCR)
SCR is a well-known and efficient technology for significant reduction of NO
x
emissions (up
to 95%) from exhaust gas. As the name implies, SCR converts NO
x
back to N
2
(nitrogen
gas) and O
2
(oxygen). Using SRC systems, even the strictest IMO Tier III standards can be
fulfilled. This can have a high impact on the NOx depositions in natural preservation areas
many miles away from the ship, especially since the NOx is emitted at great heights and the
high temperature of the exhaust gases. Through SCR system noise can also be reduced;
typical noise reductions are in the range of 8-10dB. The technology update can be
implemented relatively easy. In addition, the retrofit costs are manageable, ranging from
about 15-110 €/kW. However, it has to be considered that the system has to be replaced
regularly (approx. after 4 years). In addition, OPEX are expected to increase, mainly as a
result of increasing fuel costs (approx. + 7-10%).
Cruise lines Green Cruise
Port, 2018g;
Fathom, 2018
11 Scrubber
systems
Scrubber systems are an established technology to remove harmful particles and residues
from a ship`s exhaust gas. Since this system lowers the temperature of the exhaust fumes,
they cannot be combined with SCR systems without further treatment. Using scrubber
systems on ships allows for significant reduction of SOx (up to 90%) and PM (up to 80%)
emissions. Scrubber systems are especially promising since IMO and SECA regulations
can be met thereby even using (cheap) high sulfur content fuels. In addition, scrubber
systems show good noise reduction capabilities of up to 30 dB. The main challenge of
scrubber systems is the high investment required. Investment range from 200-400 €/kW
and up to 20 million € for a complete cruise ship retrofit. In addition, operating costs will also
increase as a result of additional fuel and maintenance costs (approx. + 4 €/ MWh).
There are different scrubber types: wet scrubbers and dry scrubber systems. Wet
scrubbers use the alkalinity of (sea) water to bind SOx and to cool down the
exhaust gas. The amount of needed water increases with the sulphur content of the
fuel and also with the exhaust flow rate and temperature.
Cruise lines Green Cruise
Port, 2018g;
Walter, 2012;
Fung et al., 2014
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 42
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
Open-loop wet scrubbers use seawater for cooling and scrubbing of exhaust gas.
The processed seawater can be discharged back to sea after water treatment
according to MEPC.184(59) while particulate matter of various chemical nature
from the fuel remain in a form of sludge on board. Currently, there is uncertainty
about the cumulative effects of scrubber water discharge. There is no uniform
European standard, but in several ports and coastal areas the operation of open-
loop system is already forbidden to protect the marine environment. Restrictions or
even prohibitions of open-loop scrubbers may be predestined.
Closed-loop scrubbers use fresh water added with sodium hydroxide that is
reprocessed on board in a closed water loop. The sodium hydroxide infusion
maintains a certain alkalinity level. Like open-loop systems, sludge is produced and
must be discharged on land. The sludge is classified as hazardous waste, similar to
oil sludge disposal, and contains toxic substances. Closed-loop systems require
more installation space than open-loop systems due to increased system
complexity. Closed-loop scrubbers are attractive for vessels that operate in areas
where the discharge of wash water is forbidden. Besides, in seas with high amount
of brackish water like the Baltic Sea the alkalinity of seawater can be too low for
efficient open-loop scrubber operation.
In dry scrubbers the exhaust gas is pushed through a reservoir of calcium
hydroxide granulate, which reacts with the SOx of the exhaust gas to gypsum. This
technology is widely used in onshore applications but did not win recognition in
maritime applications b
y
now.
Alternative fuels
12 LNG LNG is formed when natural gas is cooled to -162 ºC, which shrinks the volume of the gas
600 times. In its liquid state, LNG is not explosive and does not ignite and can reduce air
pollution considerably. Using a gas-only engine can reduce SO
x
emissions and PM by
almost 100% compared to conventional fuel oil. The technical solution often includes a dual-
fuel engine that can run on either LNG or fuel oil. The CO
2
mitigation potential of LNG is
proven to be substantial with CO
2
reduction which ranges between 5-30% compared to the
Cruise lines Green Cruise
Port, 2018g;
IMO, 2016;
Bouman et al.,
2017; Verbeek,
2013;
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 43
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
heavy fuel oil. However, handling and combustion of LNG involves the release of unburnt
methane, also referred as methane slip, which can diminish its overall environmental
advantages depending on the volume of the methane emissions (see Section 2.3.2).
17
Some reports therefore assume LNG to be rather a potential interim solution in order to
reach low carbon ship transports. In addition, refitting an LNG or dual-fuel engine or boiler is
highly cost demanding since substantial modifications of the whole system are necessary. It
is also important to consider that the profitability of LNG for cruise ships depends upon
future LNG and fuel prices. In future, a small part of LNG can also be produced by
anaerobic digestion or gasification of biomass (Bio-LNG). First trials show promising results.
CLEANSHIP
2013
13 Advanced
biofuels
Biofuels are produced from organic material (e.g. plant materials and animal waste) trough
contemporary biological processes. While traditional biofuels include unprocessed biomass
(e.g. fuelwood), advanced biofuels are produced by extracting biofuels from materials such
as wood, crops and waste material. The biomass conversion can result in fuel in solid,
liquid, or gas form. Advanced biofuels offer a high potential in reducing CO
2
emissions in the
range of 25-100%, depending on the quality, type and the way it is processed. Further,
biofuels lead to significantly reduced emissions of SO
x
. Using technical complex measures,
it is possible to use marine biofuels that are compatible with existing marine engines. There
is also the possibility of blending biofuels with conventional marine diesel. One of the main
challenges is that the availability of biofuels for the transport sector is limited. The market
entry for biofuels in the marine sector is therefore most favorable on-board of smaller
vessels for coastal waters. The cost of biofuels is also higher than the cost of fossil fuels and
is expected to remain so in the medium term. Further weaknesses of biofuels are concerns
Cruise lines IEA
Bioenenergy,
2017
17
According to Verbeek, the GHG mitigation potential will be loosed if the methane slip is higher than 5.8 kg/kWh. Manufacturers claim that efficient engines can emit less than 1
g/kWh while others might have emissions close to 6 g/kWh (Verbeek, 2013).
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 44
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
about storage and oxidation stability of the fuel and the lack of long-term fuel testing for
marine biofuels. Nevertheless, various ships are already running on advanced biofuels.
14 Ammonia (NH
3
) Similar to H
2
, ammonia can be an interesting fuel option for vessels. However, research is
still in its infancy so that it is not possible to make qualified statements about the real
economic and technical feasibility. The main challenges are that the production of ammonia
to date relies on fossil fuels and the significant higher fuel prices compared to HFO.
Cruise lines ITF, 2018
15 Electric / hybrid
propulsion
Theoretically, it is also possible to deploy electric / hybrid propulsion systems on cruise
ships. The advantages of electric propulsion systems are its high efficiency, resulting in
significant fuel savings (even for hybrid systems up to 40%). Furthermore, local air and
noise emissions can almost fully be eliminated. Producers of a Norwegian electric car ferry
report a reduction of CO
2
emissions by 95% and operating cost by 80%. However, electric
(full and hybrid) vessel has been estimated to be the least profitable technology compared
to alternative fuel options. This is mainly because high battery costs. Furthermore, the low
energy density of current available battery systems would make it necessary to have
immense quantities of battery packs on-board to provide sufficient range (especially for
cruise ships). Finally, recharging the battery systems would require specific extremely
powerful infrastructure (charging systems) in ports.
Cruise lines ITF, 2018
16 Hydrogen (H
2
) H
2
can also be a viable alternative fuel in future since it emits zero CO
2
, SO
X
and only
negligible amounts of NO
X
. However, the use of hydrogen as a replacement for conventional
diesel fuel still requires research and development, particularly to make it commercially
viable. Furthermore, safety issues, especially for cruise vessels, remain a main challenge.
Cruise lines ITF, 2018
17 Methanol Methanol could be one of the future marine fuels that can be – similar to LNG – be used in
marine duel-fuel engines. Its advantages compared with LNG include its better storage and
distribution capabilities since it is liquid at room temperature. Methanol is also convenient
because it is available worldwide and requires only minor modifications to ships and
Cruise lines ITF, 2018; FCBI
energy, 2015
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 45
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
bunkering infrastructure. Installation costs of a small methanol bunkering unit have been
estimated at around 400,000 €; a bunker vessel can be converted for approx. 1.5 million €.
Today, most of the methanol is produced from natural gas. It has a total CO
2
emission
reduction potential of approx. 25% compared to HFO. In addition, methanol has an emission
reduction potential of 99% for SO
x
, 60% for NO
x
and 95% for PM. Methanol thus also meets
the SECA and NECA emission requirements without any exhaust treatment. The usage of
renewable energy sources for the production of methanol even enables a further reduction
of GHG emissions. One challenge is the higher methanol prices compared to HFO.
Expansion in methanol manufacturing capacity, however, could downward pressure on
costs, making methanol even more cost-competitive. In Sweden, a pilot project was
launched to convert a RoPax vessel into a methanol-powered vessel and to provide the
bunkering facilities in ports. Although the conversion cost 22 million €, the vessel operator
expects significant cost reductions of around two-thirds of the total cost of ownership.
Energy efficiency measures
18 Energy efficiency
measures
Improving energy efficiency via technological measures is the aim of the global regulation on
the energy efficiency of ship (see Section 2.3.2). There is a wide range of technical
measures available used to increase the energy efficiency of a ship including
Light materials and slender design;
Propulsion improvement devices;
Bulbous bow;
Air lubrication and hull surface; and
Heat recovery.
Slender hull designs, for example, can reduce the overall propulsion requirements of a ship;
compared to standard designs fuel consumption savings of up to 15% are possible. A
detailed description of these possible technical measures can be found in ITF, 2018.
In addition, LED lighting can be applied for on-board applications. In 2015, Costa Cruises
Cruise lines Green Cruise
Port, 2018g; ITF,
2018
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 46
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
upgraded ten of its ships with LED driven lighting, resulting in a 60% reduction of energy
used for lighting per ship.
Objective: Avoid or reduce ship noise emissions in ports
19 Exhaust
silencers
Exhaust silencers, such as absorption silencers or resonator silencer, can be used to reduce
exhaust noise from cruise ships. The needed noise attenuation of a silencer should be
determined by thorough calculations taking the type of engine, design of the exhaust stack,
external noise limits and other relevant factors into consideration. Ideally, noise abatements
of up to 20dB for selected frequencies are possible. Due to the complex interaction with ship
design, cost estimations of silencers are highly case dependent. However, a rough
estimation of typical capital costs for each main exhaust silencer (absorption type) of a 300
m cruise ship with 4 generator sets amounts up to 80,000 €.
Cruise lines ETB 2018;
Green Cruise
Port, 2018d
20 Noise reduction
of ventilation
systems
In ports, on-board fans are usually operated continuously. Standard methods for reducing
noise from ventilation systems onboard a ship include
primary measures: e.g. optimal system design or ensure of good inflow); and
secondary measures: e.g. usage of silencers or improvement of fan rooms (adding
mineral wool to fan rooms for example)
An overview of suitable measures for ventilation system noise mitigation can be found in the
Green Cruise Port project study listed. It is worth noting that all noise reduction measures for
fans are subject to trade-offs. Besides costs, especially the space requirements must be
considered for the selection of measures. While silencers can be retrofitted with relatively
little efforts, other measures (e.g. exchange of fan units) are considerably more complex.
Cruise lines Green Cruise
Port, 2018d
Source: HPC, 2019.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 47
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3.2.3 Evaluation of Measures
In the previous section, a broad range of possible measures for reducing the
negative environmental effects (GHG, air and noise emissions) caused by cruise
ships in ports have been identified. In the following, these measures will be
evaluated on the basis of two main criteria.
1. Impact on environmental sustainability: this criterion relates to the
quality of a measure with regard to their potential on reducing local air
pollutants, greenhouse gas and noise emissions in a (cruise) port.
- The higher the resulting specific emission mitigation potential of a
measure, the higher the resulting impact (e.g. in terms of noise).
- Measures that contribute to reducing various kind of emissions (e.g.
reduction at GHG, air and noise emissions through onshore power supply)
get a higher rating that measures that only contribute to reducing one kind
of emission (e.g. NO
x
reduction through SCR on vessels).
2. Efforts for implementation: this criterion relates to capital and
operational expenditure as well as operational efforts, i.e. time and
resources required to implement a certain measure.
- Measures that are relatively simple efforts to implement (e.g. exhaust
silencers) achieve a higher rating than measures that can only
implemented with great expense and effort (e.g. mobile LNG barge).
The most promising measures are those with a high impact / effort ratio, namely
having a high impact on environmental sustainability and, at the same time,
requiring low effort for implementation (so called “low hanging fruits”). The
quality evaluation scores are clustered into five categories – ranging from very
good to very poor (see Figure 15). The allocation of measures to these defined
clusters enables to prioritize them and to make recommendations (see Section 4).
It is worth noting that it is quite difficult to make general statements about the
impact / effort of a specific measure. Regarding the emission saving potential of a
measure, for example, the decision whether to focus on GHG, air pollutants, noise
or all is dependent upon several factors. For ports next to residential areas (e.g. the
Ports of Hamburg or Tallinn), local air pollutants play a much greater role than for
ports that are located outside residential areas. In addition, the actual emission
saving potential of a measure is highly case dependent. For example, the actual
GHG emission reduction potential from onshore power supply depends upon the
energy generation mix of the local grid. One of the main challenges in estimating
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 48
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
the total efforts for implementing sustainability measures in a port is to adequately
assess the resulting procedural efforts, in particular technical and human
capacities required or any necessary redesign of process chains. Likewise, for
some ports it is almost impossible to provide stationary LNG bunkering facilities
as a result of space constraints. Nevertheless, the evaluation scheme developed
gives important hints for cruise ports and cruise lines.
Figure 15: Evaluation of measures – WP 2
Source: HPC, 2019.
Objective 1: Avoid or reduce ship
GHG and air emissions in ports
Ship-port interface
1. On-shore power supply (OPS)
2. LNG PowerPac
3. LNG bunkering facilities:
truck-to-ship (TTS)
4. LNG bunkering facilities:
shore to ship
5. LNG bunkering facilities:
ship- to-ship (STS)
6. LNG bunkering facilities:
local liquefaction plant
7. Mobile LNG barge
8. Automated mooring Systems
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 49
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Exhaust gas treatment systems
9. Diesel particle filer (DPF)
10. Selective catalytic reduction
system (SCR)
11. Scrubber systems
Alternative fuels
12. LNG
13. Advanced biofuels
14. Ammonia (NH
3
)
15. Electric / hybrid propulsion
16. Hydrogen (H
2
)
17. Methanol
Energy efficiency measures
18. Energy efficiency measures
Objective 2: Avoid or reduce
ship noise emissions in ports
19. Exhaust silencers
20. Noise reduction of ventilation
systems
Further measures: 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 15, 16, 18
It is interesting to note that there are no “low-hanging fruit” measures. In Chapter
4, the most promising measures will be further explained, and specific
recommendations be derived.
3.3 WP 3: Smart Cruise Terminal Buildings & Innovative
Reception Facilities
3.3.1 Collection of Measures
It should be recalled that sustainability issues in cruise ports have to be addressed
on two different areas, on the water side (vessel operation) and on the land side
(port operation) While the previous section identified and evaluated measures to
reduce emissions caused by cruise vessel, this section places the focus on
measures to reduce or mitigate emissions and waste caused by port operation.
Within the Green Cruise Port project’s WP 3, a broad range of studies had been
carried out on this issue. In a study published by the Port of Tallinn and SWECO,
the possibilities of implementing sustainable, in particular energy efficient and
emission-free, solutions at cruise terminals had been investigated. The authors
derived important recommendations on how to build, establish and operate a
sustainable cruise terminal building (Green Cruise Port, 2017f). In another study,
carried out by the Port of Helsinki and ECOBIO, the cost efficiency of the Port
Reception Facility (PRF) in a specific port had been assessed and future
possibilities for changes in the PRF both from an economical and environmental
point of view had been analyzed (Green Cruise Port, 2017b). In two other Green
Cruise Port studies, already mentioned in the previous section, the emission
sources (GHG, air and noise) of cruise terminals were identified and several
mitigation measures to reduce both water-side and land-side emissions in cruise
ports been proposed (Green Cruise Port, 2018d; Green Cruise Port, 2018g). In
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 50
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
addition, a broad range of project-related workshops on this issue have been
performed in the course of the project.
In the following section, the resulting (sustainability) measures identified are
compiled and described. In order to gain an even more comprehensive overview,
also external studies and publications are considered in the analysis. To this end,
scientific publications other project reports manufacturers' brochures as well
studies published by renowned institutions have been considered.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 51
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3.3.2 Categorization of Measures
Table 7: Overview of measures – Smart Cruise Terminal Buildings & Innovative Reception Facilities
# Action Description Responsibility Source
Ob
j
ective: Improve waste mana
g
ement of cruise port terminals
1 Integrated
waste
management
Since waste disposal companies in individual cruise ports in the BSR have varying capabilities
of handling different types of waste, their resources can be combined to optimize the disposal or
recycling at adequate reception facilities in a regional waste management plan. This would
require cruise ships to specifically organize their waste sorting and disposal with regard to the
specific reception possibilities of the receiving port and help the individual waste management
provider to optimize its transport capacities and reception facilities.
Port Authority
shipping lines
and waste
facilities
Green Cruise
Ports 2017b;
Zuin et al
2009;
2 Standardized
waste
notification
form
To create transparency and predictability in the waste handling in the participating ports, a
standardized waste notification form can be established for cruise ships to pre-announce the
amount and the type of waste they intend to dispose. In order to provide the cruise ships and
operators with a single list format, the ports are required to agree on standardized categories of
waste types for the vessels to sort the waste accordingly on board.
Port authorities
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Ports, 2017b;
Svaetichin,
2016
3 Waste fee
reduction for
sorted waste /
sewage
disposal
As an alternative to measure 1, reduced waste fee can be offered for vessels which sort the
waste on board, as practiced in the Port of Tallinn or the Ports of Stockholm. This would
encourage shipping lines to introduce a sorting system on board (if not already in place) and
increase the effectivity of the resource disposition of the waste disposal companies. A variation
of this approach is followed by the Port of Helsinki where vessels are granted a 20% fee
reduction for waste disposal if they also dispose of their wastewater.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Ports, 2017b;
Svaetichin,
2016
4 No-Special-
Fee System
Copenhagen Malmö Port, Port of Tallinn, Port of Helsinki and the Ports of Stockholm and
Nynäshamn have implemented different “No-Special-Fee” systems for the reception of waste,
Port authority or
terminal
Svaetichin,
2016
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 52
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
which includes the waste handling costs in the regular port fees. The intention behind this
concept is to generate a more balanced distribution of waste between the participating ports
instead of leaving the port with the lowest fees to deal with the bulk of ship generated waste.
operator(s)*
5 Standardized
scrubber waste
handling
As a result of the implementation of the Sulphur Directive ((EU) 2016/802)), the scrubber waste
(as the waste product of the exhaust gas purification of the equipped cruise vessels) is
becoming a new important faction of waste. At present, there is no standardized handling
approach. With regard to a unified waste management, the ports should have to come to an
agreement on the means of dealing with this type of waste, ideally comprising an incentive for
the use of scrubbing technology. To facilitate this, scrubber waste could be included in a “No-
Fee System”, as already practiced in the Port of Tallinn.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s)*
Svaetichin,
2016
6 Wastewater
pipelines to
municipal
sewerage
The installation of wastewater pipeline connections in the cruise terminal piers, directly
connected to the municipal sewerage systems, like in the Port of Helsinki, the Ports of
Stockholm, and the Port of Tallinn, would fasten the process of discharging and eliminate the
need for costly and comparatively inefficient transport by truck. For this purpose, the Port of
Tallinn, for example, has recently invested 2 million Euro to connect the port’s sewage pipeline
to the city wastewater network, thereby increasing the reception capacity per hour by 1,000%.
As an additional effect this would also further reduce the operations-related emissions
otherwise generated by the utilization of the sewage trucks. For the realization of this measure,
it must be considered that additional wastewater bunkering facilities must be installed. This is
required since, it is in most ports, it is not possible to feed the whole and large amount of
wastewater from vessels in the municipal sewerage systems at once.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s)*
Svaetichin,
2016
Objective: Reduce energy consumption / emissions from terminal operations
Whole port area
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 53
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
7 Noise barrier In case the emission levels of noise emitting equipment on the pier and at the terminal area
cannot be attenuated sufficiently, noise barriers are an option to reduce at least immission
impact at selected locations. They impede sound radiation from source to receiver, as they
block the direct propagation of sound. They can be fitted with noise damping material to reduce
reflection at the barrier. In dependence of frequency, practical maximum noise reductions of 25
dB can be achieved. The placement of noise barriers is case dependent. Typically, the terminal
building itself acts as a noise barrier to the pier area. A parking lot for noisy machinery, such as
cooling aggregates of supply trucks, can be installed below the roof of the terminal and
surrounded by noise barriers.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018d
8
Certified
energy
management
system (EMS)
Implementing an EMS to monitor, quantify and control overall energy consumption. To introduce
a certified EMS, it is highly recommended to create an energy management department or to
appoint an energy manager. The Port of Koper could reduce their energy consumption by more
than 10% through the implementation of an EMS.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Pavlic, 2014
9 Energy audits Energy audits are a good way to identify energy saving measures that are techno-economically
feasible. The purpose of energy auditing is to analyze the energy use of the facility (e.g. cruise
port location) being audited, to work out the potential for energy savings, and to present a
profitability calculation on the basis of the proposed investments and savings.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
U.S. DOE,
2011
10 Employee
suggestion
system
Another proven means to involve employees into the process of striving towards energy
sustainability is to introduce an employee suggestion system. Awards for bringing in ideas with
a high impact on energy sustainability can further promote participation and increase
employees’ motivation.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
HPC
database
11 Employee
environment
training
Creating a “green mindset” of the employees through short training sessions and explain, how
energy can be saved can result in
notable energy and emission savings.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
HPC
database
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 54
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
12 Employee bus
shuttle services
A staff shuttle bus is an initiative designed to offer company staff an alternative to the car.
Through this measure, traffic congestions in the port area can be reduced or even prevented.
Productivity and employee satisfaction can rise accordingly.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
HPC
database
13 Obtain “green”
energy
Instead of producing renewable energy on-site, green energy can also usually be procured from
an energy producer. In general, this is an easy to implement measure to improve the eco-
balance of a port. The additional costs depend on local conditions.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
HPC
database
14 Provision of
bicycles for
commuting
purposes
Encouraging employees to bike to work can be part of a port's overall "green" strategy or simply
a way for the employees to stay fit.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
HPC
database
15 Renewable
energy: Solar
photovoltaics
(PV)
In terms of ease of installation and maintenance, PV is clearly the most convenient way to
generate renewable electric energy. Many projects have been implemented in ports. In 2014, for
example, a large solar panel park was opened on the roof of the RDM Scheepsbouwloods in the
Port of Rotterdam and solar panels have also been installed on cold storage facilities. It is worth
noting that sufficient space needs to be available (e.g. on roofs) and the technical and economic
feasibility is case dependent. So far, no project has been conducted in cruise ports.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Efforts,
2014
16 Renewable
energy: Wind
power
Wind can be converted into usable electrical energy in wind turbine. The usage of wind energy
is especially promising in costal or upland areas. The main challenge of using wind energy in
(cruise) ports is the limited space available. Furthermore, turbines might cause noise and
aesthetic pollution. However, wind power can be cost-effective (mainly as a result of the very
low operating costs) and it does not emit any emissions for the production of energy. To data,
there are several wind power plants on port premises. A wind park in the Antwerp port area, for
example, consists of 19 wind turbines, producing three megawatts each – enough to furnish the
electricity needs of almost 40,000 households. As with all renewable energy options, the
technical and economic feasibility is case dependent.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Efforts,
2014
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 55
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
17 Renewable
energy:
Hydropower
Potential and kinetic energy of flowing water can be tapped to produce electricity or mechanical
tasks. There are several techniques of harnessing tidal and wave power. But most of them are
not feasible in terminals because of the large area requirement in case of tidal barrage and
lagoons, and also because of creation of obstruction within the terminals. Currently, the Port of
Dover project is investigating the feasibility of a tidal energy power station, testing smaller scale
devices in a commercial location.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Efforts,
2014
18 Renewable
energy: Biogas
Biogas is produced by the fermentation of organic substances, which can also serve as
renewable energy source. Biogas produces a smaller amount of harmful GHG than fossil fuel
and requires only moderate upfront capital costs. However, a biogas plant is a very complex,
space-intensive and rather individual facility. One further challenge is that the required
substrates and fermentation residue need to be transported. Finally, a biogas plant may also
cause unpleasant smell in the port area. Hence, biogas plants appear unsuitable in cruise ports.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
HPC
database
19 Renewable
energy:
Geothermal
The idea of geothermal technology is to use terrestrial heat to generate electric power. Beside
the electric power supply, several companies offer systems to use the geothermal energy for
heating and cooling buildings. The advantage compared to other renewable energy sources is
the permanent access to the energy source. The Ports of Stockholm, for example, partly uses
geothermal energy as part of their HVAC systems. Especially the drilling process has a high
impact on the necessary capital for these systems. Therefore, the technical and economic
feasibility is case dependent.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Efforts,
2013
20 Renewable
energy:
Microturbine
Microturbines are a relatively new distributed generation technology being used for stationary
energy generation applications. They are a type of combustion turbine that produces both heat
and electricity on a relatively small scale. Total plant efficiencies as high as 90% are possible.
Microturbines can be used for several use cases, such as stand-by power, as distributed
generation system or for peak shaving purposes. In particular, microturbines offer many
potential advantages for distributed power generation as they have a compact size and produce
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
University of
California,
2016
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 56
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
less emissions and waste. Their weakness is their low fuel to electricity efficiency. The technical
and economic feasibility for cruise ports is case dependent.
21 Target to
reduce
emissions
After setting an appropriate emission baseline and prioritizing pollutants, a team should set up
an emission target in terms of percentage of emission baseline in a given year. Goals help to
measure progress towards a target, making energy efficiency more tangible and yielding
quantifiable results. The efforts for implementation are moderate; however, the goal must be
realistic.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
ACEE, 2010
22 Smart grid
applications
Under the context of a harbor terminal, the deployment of smart grid technology can be
explained by three major aspects, namely: installation of onsite generation and storage devices,
adoption of new communication and automation measures, and finally optimal management of
all active resources in the grid. The efforts for implementation can be high while significant
energy savings can be exploited.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Efforts,
2014
Terminal buildings
It is important to consider that a cruise terminal building is different compared to a residential or typical non-residential building. Its special
characteristics are (Green Cruise Port, 2017f):
The irregular utilization of the building (e.g. high season vs. off-season);
The influence of maritime climate (e.g. higher average temperature in autumn); and
The special architectural solutions (e.g. large proportion of glass facades)
These special characteristics must be considered when improving a cruise terminal’s level of sustainability.
23 Building design The shape of a building affects its use of energy; the more compact the building and the
smaller the area of the envelope per volume unit, the lower the need of heat energy. For the
optimal design of a terminal, several construction criteria must be considered, such as
envelope of the building (e.g. massiveness of exterior wall) or
doors and windows of the buildings (proportion of glass facade).
Valuable construction
g
uidelines can be found in the Green Cruise Port stud
y
listed.
Green Cruise
Port, 2017f
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 57
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
24 District heating
/ cooling
Instead of each building having its own heating or cooling system, the energy can be delivered
to several buildings in a larger area from a central plant. To transport heat efficiently, the district
heating distribution infrastructure comprises a network of insulated pipes, delivering heat in the
form of hot water, from the generation site to the end user. A change of the heating system
from conventional (fossil) to district heating can reduce both GHG and emissions significantly.
Usually district heating is more energy efficient, due to simultaneous production of heat and
electricity in combined heat and power generation plants (CHP). Options for district heating
(and cooling) are gas, biomass, central solar heating, heat pumps and geothermal heating. In
the Port of Stockholm, for example, the CO
2
e emissions could by decreased from 5,500 to 0.7
tons, mainly because of the switch from oil to district heat. A cooling network is a centralized
system that provides chilled water to supply an air conditioning system. In practice, it includes
chilled water production and distribution facilities to provide cooling services to all connected
buildings.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2017f;
Green Cruise
Port, 2018g
25 Green roof The building has a green roof that cleans the air, reduces the load of rainwater, and decreases
the temperature of the roof. Similar green areas are situated around the building as well for the
purposes of cleaning the air and rainwater (cleaned seawater is directed into the sea).
Green Cruise
Port, 2017f
26 Indoor
temperature
adaption /
Demand-
controlled
ventilation
(DCV) system
Buildings should be divided into thermal zones with separate controls based on space
functions. The radiant heaters should be controlled by timers or occupancy sensors to minimize
their operation when areas are unoccupied. In addition, adjusting room temperature closer to
the ambient temperature results in significant energy / emission saving potentials; reducing the
indoor temperature in winter from 25.6° to 22.2° had been shown to reduce energy
consumption by up to 40% on average (Green Cruise Port, 2017f).
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2017f;
Rosone, 2016
27 LED
technology
Using LED instead conventional light bulbs can immediately reduce energy usage / emissions
but also reduce maintenance costs. While requiring greater initial investment, newer
Port authority
or terminal
Green Cruise
Port, 2017f;
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 58
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
technologies tend to offer longer operational lifetimes, reduced maintenance requirements, and
superior performance when compared to many conventional lighting techniques. Furthermore,
newer lighting technologies such as LED and LEP, continue to evolve, suggesting that further
improvements in safety, operational and environmental performance could be realized with
such technologies in the years ahead.
operator(s)* PEMA, 2018
28 Nearly zero
energy building
A nearly zero energy building (also known as nZEB) is a building that has been built in
accordance with the best possible construction practices using the technological solutions of
energy efficiency and renewable energy. An energy performance indicator is a “specific use of
energy”, which reflects an integrated energy use for controlling indoor climate, heating of
household water and utilizing appliances and other electrical equipment. It is calculated per
square meter of heated area of a building in its typical utilization. To achieve a NZEb, a terminal
must not exceed 130 kWh/(m
2
-y). Energy savings in green buildings typically exceed any cost
premiums associated with their design and construction within a reasonable payback period.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2017f;
USGBC, 2015
29 Noise
treatment
systems for
luggage boxes
On cruise terminals, the transport of luggage from the pier onto the cruise ship is generally
carried out with luggage boxes for cranes. There are principally two methods available to
reduce radiated airborne noise:
Reduction of excitation force in the frequency range of structural response. This is
possible by elastic feet to prolong impact time; and
Reduction of structural response by application of additional damping, for example
constrained layer damping.
Both technologies are very simple to install and naturally come along with only minor capital
costs. No operatin
g
and maintenance costs appl
y
.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018d
30 Seawater
source heat
pumps
Seawater can be used for heating and cooling the premises and producing hot water.
Open water system: seawater is pumped to heat exchangers, brings the energy carrier
to the set temperature
Closed loop systems: cold / heat is in a closed pipe that has been installed to the
bottom of the sea. This system is very efficient; however, high investments must be
made.
Green Cruise
Port, 2017f
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 59
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
According to a Green Cruise Port Study, open water systems are much easier to realize. Here,
it is recommended to use heat pump solutions for both heating and cooling. However, it must be
noted that the initial investment is much higher compared to district heating and cooling
solutions. Detailed information can be found in the study listed.
31 Adaptive
lighting
An adaptive lighting system automatically adjusts its light output and operation to provide
targeted light levels based on environmental conditions, user schedules, or other application-
specific criteria. An adaptive lighting system can include many different types of products
including dimmable lamps and luminaires, occupancy sensors, photocontrols, time clocks, etc.
In the Port of Stockholm, for example, energy savings of approx. 35% could be achieved
through this measure.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
California
Lighting
Technology
Center, 2015
32 Energy
efficiency
measures in IT
data center
Decreasing energy consumption in data centers has become a priority for organizations seeking
to reduce their environmental footprint. 50% or more reduction in data center energy
consumption without compromising performance or availability is possible. By consolidating
multiple, independent servers to a single physical server, for example, those servers can
operate more efficiently and reduce energy costs by 10% to 40%. An overview of applicable
energy efficiency measures in IT data centers can be found in Energy Star, 2015.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Energy Star,
2015
33 Regular
maintenance of
HVAC system
HVAC operation can easily be optimized by regular maintenance. Changing clogged air filters,
for example, is a basic measure to prevent steady increase in HVAC energy consumption.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Rosone, 2016
Cargo and pier handling equipment
34
Automatized
and electrified
luggage
handling
Automatized and electrified luggage handling has the potential to further reduce emissions at
the cruise terminal, for example, by reducing the number of forklifts needed for cargo handling.
Literature in this field is still scarce, but knowledge of airport luggage handling procedures may
be transferred to cruise terminal operations.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018g
35
Electrification
Delivering a high level of efficiency and torque, electric motors provide the best platform for an Port authority Green Cruise
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 60
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
of power train
(battery or fuel
cell)
efficient powertrain. Furthermore, the use of electrified equipment can reduce both GHG and air
but also noise emissions significantly. Ideally, an advanced level of electrification should go
hand in hand with the increasing use of renewable energy to ensure real “emission-free port
operations”. One further advantage of electrified equipment is the possibility to operate indoor
and outdoor. However, the electrification of cargo handling equipment, such as forklifts, not only
results in significant capital expenditures (approx. +30% compared to conventional equipment)
but also in considerably operational requirements, mainly due to the battery charging processes
and the installation of charging solutions. Fuel-cell powered equipment can reduce the charging
time, but safety requirements are high.
or terminal
operator(s)*
Port, 2018g
36
Alternative
fuels
Instead of diesel, cargo handling equipment can alternatively be fuelled with alternative, low-
emission fuels. A Tank-to-Wheel CO
2
e
18
comparison reveals the emissions saving potential:
Diesel fuel: 3.21 kg CO
2
e/kg diesel
Biodiesel (B100): 0 kg CO
2
e/kg diesel
Biodiesel (B20): 2.67 kg CO
2
e/kg diesel
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG): 3.78 CO
2
e/kg diesel
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG): 3.1 CO
2
e/kg diesel
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): 2.28 CO
2
e/kg diesel
Consequently, emissions can be reduced significantly when switching to alternative fuels.
However, biodiesel is slightly more expensive than normal diesel fuel while LNG, LPG and CNG
require a specific infrastructure on the terminal’s premise.
An appropriate interim solution to achieve an emission-free transport system could be CNG.
CNG burns cleaner than petroleum-based products due to its lower carbon content.
Compared to petrol or diesel, CNG vehicles emit 40% less of nitrous oxide, 90% less of
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Standard EN
16258; IMO,
2016
18
Emissions only associated with vehicle operation
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 61
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
hydrocarbons, 80% less of carbon monoxide, and 25% less of carbon dioxide. Further, noise
level of CNG engine is much lower than that of diesel. Despite its advantages, the use of natural
gas vehicles faces several limitations, including fuel storage and infrastructure available for
delivery and distribution at fuelling stations. Furthermore, CNG today mostly comes from non-
renewable sources. Nevertheless, it can be supplied or produced from renewable sources.
37
Auto idle locks
Reduce idling emissions by using idle-reduction technologies that include automatic shut down
and start up systems. In conjunction with speed reduction and other measures, the
implementation of auto idle locks resulted in an annual decrease of 5-10% in fuel consumption
at the Port of Trelleborg.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Swiftly Green,
2015
38
Eco-driving
lessons
Offering employees eco-driving lessons is a suitable means to reduce energy consumption of
cargo handling equipment, cranes and vehicles in a port or terminal. According to Mark et al.
(2015), field test with buses showed that drivers could reduce fuel consumption by up to 15%
due to the participation in an eco-driving program. This measure has also been proven to be
very effective to reduce GHG, noise and air emissions. The eco-driving training can be provided
in the form of on-road training or with simulators.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Swiftly Green,
2015; Mark et
al., 2015
39
Emission
control
technologies
(ECTs)
Cargo handling equipment can be retrofitted to meet the desired emission standard. Depending
on the appropriate application of ECT, ECTs can include: a) Diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC); b)
Closed Crankcase Ventilation (CCV); c) Diesel particulate filter (DPF); d) Selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) and e) Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR). Regarding diesel particulate filters for
forklifts for example, retrofit costs for are manageable (3,000-7,000 €) while PM can be reduced
by more than 90% according to the manufacturer's specification. Further details about the
emission reduction potential are presented in the sources.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
IMO, 2016;
GenCat, 2017
40
Energy saving
tires
Use state of the art “low rolling resistance” tires to save fuel. Promising energy and emission
savings are possible since tires account for 20–30% of a vehicle’s fuel consumption. Through
the usage of energy saving tires, up to 10% fuel savings possible. This measure is also easy to
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
ENERGYWIS
E, 2016
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 62
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
implement due to the fact that as state-of-the-art tires are slightly more expensive than
conventional ones.
41
Hybrid power-
train
Enables a vehicle to operate equally efficiently on both electrified and non-electrified tracks due
to a common propulsion chain. Hybrid (and all-electric) yard hostlers and forklifts operate
efficiently under “stop & go” conditions and reduce on-dock emissions. In the Port of Long
Beach, three battery-electric hybrid yard hostlers were developed and compared to conventional
yard hostlers. The hybrid yard hostlers were able to perform all tasks required in real world use.
After addressing mechanical differences, the hybrid system could achieve 12-18% improvement
in fuel saving. Business case analysis showed that incentives of just over 17,000 $ per vehicles
would be needed to ensure return on investment.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
CALSTART,
2012
External traffic
42
Emission
control zones
One proven means to reduce emissions from external traffic is to further tighten emissions
standards for vehicles / trucks in the port area, e.g. in the form of EURO V or VI standards. The
efforts for implementation are low, however, the standards should not be so strict as to make
normal business impossible.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2018g
43
Alternative
cooling
concepts:
Dearman
Transport
Refrigeration
Unit
To reduce emissions from cooling units of food supply trucks in the port area, alternative engine
concepts can be implemented. One interesting option is the “Dearman Transport Refrigeration
Unit” that uses a piston engine powered by liquid nitrogen that generates both cold and power.
Depending on energy generation mix used for the production of liquid nitrogen, CO
2
emission
reductions in the range of 30-85% are possible while NO
x
and PM can also be reduced by >
70%. According to manufacturer's specification, the system also has the potential to meet
60dB(A) PIEK with insulation pack. Cost information, however, are not publicly available.
Especially high investment, however, can be a pitfall for feasibility.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
Dearman
Technology
Centre, 2017
44
Alternative
One further option is to connect the cooling units to the local grid. Again, the CO
2
reduction Port authority HPC
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 63
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
cooling
concepts: Grid
connection
potential depends on the energy generation mix of grid used while air emissions can be totally
eliminated.
or terminal
operator(s)*
database
45
Alternative
cooling
concepts:
Local
warehouse
To reduce emissions from cooling units of trucks, it is also possible to install and provide a
refrigerated warehouse on the port’s premise. This not only results in GHG emissions
reductions but especially in a reduction of local air emissions. However, the constructions costs
are high while space needs to be available.
Port authority
or terminal
operator(s)*
HPC
database
* Depending on port management model
Source: HPC, 2019.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 64
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3.3.3 Evaluation of Measures
The previous primarily revealed a broad range of possible measures for reducing
the negative environmental effects (GHG, air and noise emissions) caused by port
operation in cruise ports. Analog to Section 3.2.3, all environmental measures will
be evaluated on the basis of two main criteria:
1. Impact on environmental sustainability: emission saving potential
2. Efforts for implementation: capital and operational expenditure as well
as operational efforts
The resulting evaluation scheme is presented in Figure 16 while the most
promising measures are presented in more detail in see Section 4.
Figure 16: Evaluation of measures – WP 3
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 65
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Source: HPC, 2019.
Objective 1: Improve waste
management of cruise port
terminals
1. Integrated waste management
2. Standardized waste
notification form
3. Waste fee reduction for sorted
waste / sewage disposal
4. No-Special- Fee System
5. Standardized scrubber waste
handling
6. Wastewater pipelines to
municipal sewerage
Objective 2: Reduce energy
consumption / emissions from
terminal operations
Whole port area
7. Noise barrier
8. Certified energy management
system (EMS)
9. Energy audits
10. Employee suggestion system
11. Employee environment
training
12. Employee bus shuttle services
13. Obtain “green” energy
14. Provision of bicycles for
commuting purposes
15. Renewable energy: Solar
photovoltaics (PV)
16. Renewable energy: Wind
power
17. Renewable energy:
Hydropower
18. Renewable energy: Biogas
19. Renewable energy:
Geothermal
20. Renewable energy:
Microturbine
21. Target to reduce emissions
22. Smart grid applications
Terminal building
23. Building design
24. District heating / cooling
25. Green roof
26. Indoor temperature adaption /
Demand-controlled ventilation
(DCV) system
27. LED technology
28. Nearly zero energy building
29. Noise treatment systems for
luggage boxes
30. Seawater source heat pumps
31. Adaptive lighting
32. Energy efficiency measures in
IT data center
33. Regular maintenance of
HVAC system
Cargo and pier handling equipment
34. Automatized and electrified
luggage handling
35. Electrification of power train
(battery or fuel cell)
36. Alternative fuels
37. Auto idle locks
38. Eco-driving lessons
39. Emission control technologies
(ECTs)
40. Energy saving tires
41. Hybrid power-train
External traffic
42. Emission control zones
43. Alternative cooling concepts:
Dearman Transport
Refrigeration Unit
44. Alternative cooling concepts:
Grid connection
45. Alternative cooling concepts:
Local warehouse
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 66
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3.4 WP 4: Smart Cruise Port Traffic Solutions & Economic
Effects
3.4.1 Collection of Measures
Within the overall set-up of the Green Cruise Port project, WP 2 and WP 3 put
emphasis on sustainability options addressing organizational and technical issues
with regard to cruise vessel equipment and cruise terminal facilities. Both work
packages have in common, that they focus primarily on the port premises, in
particular the ships’ berths and cruise terminals. Extending the area of action, WP
4 includes actions and measures supporting the development of sustainable cruise
tourism in port cities beyond the terminal area and port boundaries. In particular,
project work focused on the measurement of economic effects by cruise tourism
and incentives for green port stays by green port fees as well as cruise passenger
flow management in port cities, smart traffic links for cruise terminals and
sustainable seaside accessibility of berthing sites.
Input for the subsequent collection of measures comes, on the one hand, from the
scope of work covered by work package WP 4 of the Green Cruise Port project. In
this regard, a total of four expert workshops were held in Rostock, Gdansk, Riga
and Klaipeda. These workshops offered well received platforms for professional
exchange between stakeholders from both inside and outside the Green Cruise
Port partnership. Insights and findings from the WP 4 workshops are documented
in the corresponding workshop reports (Green Cruise Port, 2017a; Green Cruise
Port, 2017d; Green Cruise Port, 2018f; Green Cruise Port, 2018p). Moreover, four
corresponding concept studies supplemented by two additional case-/sub-studies
were elaborated during the course of project work. Focusing on maritime and
landside traffic challenges of future cruise ship size developments (Green Cruise
Port, 2018b; Green Cruise Port, 2018s), smart traffic links in cruise port cities
(Green Cruise Port, 2014; Green Cruise Port, 2018c; Green Cruise Port, 2018h)
and common standards in the measurement of economic effects by cruise tourism
(Green Cruise Port, 2017e; Green Cruise Port, 2018r) as well as green port due
strategies and incentives (Green Cruise Port, 2018j).
In addition, further secondary sources have been taken into consideration while
deriving the following measures, recommendations and actions. Among others
these include third party studies on seaside terminal accessibility, cruise passenger
behavior, as well as on differentiated port infrastructure charges providing
incentives for environmental-friendly maritime transport. Reports by industry
associations provided further sources of information.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 67
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3.4.2 Categorization of Measures
Based on the workshops held and concept studies elaborated during the Green Cruise Port project as well as taking further secondary
sources into account, a total of 41 measures have been identified for the scope of work package WP 4. The measures, summarized Table 8,
have in common that they support the overall objectives of work package WP 4, which are identified and described in Section 2.4.2 of this
report. In the following, the derived measures are thereby categorized according to the aforementioned objectives.
Table 8: Overview of measures – Smart Cruise Port Traffic Solutions & Economic Effects
# Action Description Responsibility Source
Objective: Provide solutions for nautical challenges / Improve seaward accessibility
1 Extend berth and
pier infrastructure
A workshop on maritime and landside traffic challenges of cruise ports in the Baltic
Sea Region revealed that all represented cruise ports are able to meet today’s
requirements of cruise vessel operators. The seaward infrastructure is sufficient in
all cruise ports. Four of five ports are able to accommodate vessels with a length up
to 300m. However, there is a need for infrastructure improvements to accommodate
future cruise vessels. If the existing infrastructure cannot accommodate larger
vessels or if the existing infrastructure will not be able to do so in the future, an
extension of the length and depth of piers and berths would allow accommodating
larger cruise vessels.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2017a
2 Extendable and
retractable floating
pier
If the water depth at piers is insufficient, an extendable and retractable floating pier
to moor as well as charge and discharge vessels would allow accommodating
larger cruise vessels. Such a floating passenger bridge has been put in place at the
port of Nynäshamn in Sweden. It must, however, be said that in port locations with
a great tidal range, such as in ports along the North Sea, a floating pier must be
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2017a
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 68
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
able to compensate for large differences in water levels. An assessment revealed
that this would require a sophisticated construction and would considerably raise
the costs.
3 Limit number of
vessels and
passengers
If the seaward infra- and superstructure is limited and cannot be extended, a
limitation in the number of vessels and passengers according to capacity availability
would limit the load on and requirements to infra- and superstructure.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2017a
* Depending on port management model
Objective: Improve landside accessibility & provide solutions for sustainable public transport
4 Build train, tram or
metro stations
An analysis of 27 cruise ports in the BSR indicated that private vehicle transport is
the most important mode of passenger transport in arrivals and departure at cruise
ports. Public transport options are not as developed as they should be. A higher
share of public passenger transport in arrivals and departure at turnaround ports
would, however, contribute to higher sustainability of cruise port operations. In the
case of an insufficient public transport system, the provision of train, tram or metro
stations as well as installation of ticket selling stations could improve arrival and
departure passenger traffic flows between, on the one hand, cruise terminals and,
on the other hand, the city center, central station, airport and external parking lots.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s) &
municipality*
Green Cruise
Port, 2014;
Green Cruise
Port, 2018g
5 Provide bicycle
lanes
For transit calls, the provision of bicycle lanes or an extension thereof, ideally two
lanes, from piers to cities and bicycle rental stations could improve arrival and
departure passenger traffic flows.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s) &
municipality*
Green Cruise
Port, 2014
6 Provide bus shuttle
services
For transit calls, the provision of bus shuttle services could improve arrival and
departure passenger traffic flows to and from the city center of the cruise port
location. For turnaround calls, a bus shuttle from and to external parking lots could
improve the arrival and departure of cruise guests to the terminal.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s)
&municipality*
Green Cruise
Port, 2014;
Green Cruise
Port, 2018g
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 69
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
7 Provide a separate
lane for park and
ride
For turnaround calls and ports, separate lanes for, on the one hand, park and ride
service vehicle traffic and, on the other hand, private vehicle traffic at cruise
terminals, could improve arrival and departure passenger traffic flow.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s) &
municipality*
Green Cruise
Port, 2014
8 Offer airport or
station check-in at
cruise terminals
For turnaround calls and ports, the provision of an airport or (central) station check-
in at cruise terminals for both passenger transport and luggage handling between
cruise terminals and airports could improve arrival and departure passenger traffic
flows. An airport check-in has been implemented at the cruise port of Copenhagen.
The cruise passengers have the option to check through their luggage from the
cabin of the vessel to their final destination.
Cruise terminal
operator(s), cruise
shipping line(s) &
airline(s)
Green Cruise
Port, 2014;
Green Cruise
Port, 2018g
9 Increase terminal
capacity by means
of multipurpose
terminal buildings
and tent facilities
At terminals which suffer from a lack of capacity for arrivals and departures of
passengers, a multipurpose terminal building and tent facilities, which can not only
be used for cruise tourism but also for other purposes outside the cruise season,
could improve arrival and departure passenger traffic flows. At the port of
Copenhagen, terminal buildings are used as exhibition halls and event locations.
Port authority or
terminal
operator(s)*
Green Cruise
Port, 2014
10 Bundle supply and
disposal transports
The bundling of supply and disposal deliveries between logistics centers outside the
city center and cruise vessels could reduce the traffic volume and, eventually,
improve delivery and collection of goods.
Cruise lines &
logistics providers
Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
11 Improve information
exchange between
all stakeholders
An increase in information exchange between all relevant stakeholders at a cruise
terminal and port location, for instance by means of IT systems, could improve
coordination and, in turn, improve arrivals and departures as well as deliveries and
collection of goods. These stakeholders may include cruise vessel operators,
terminal operators for both passenger and luggage handling, transport operators for
deliveries and pick-up / collection as well as passenger transport operators.
Cruise vessel
operator, terminal
operator(s) &
transport
operators
Green Cruise
Port, 2014;
Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
12 Provide adequate The provision of adequate sign posting, including road signs and car-park routing Port authority or Green Cruise
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 70
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
sign posting to and
from the terminals
systems, could improve arrivals and departures of private vehicles and busses as
well as deliveries and collection of goods.
port operator(s) &
municipality*
Port, 2014;
Green Cruise
Port, 2017a
13 Provide better
information about
tour busses
The provision of better information about tour busses and their tours could allow a
facilitated allocation of passengers to busses.
Bus operators,
terminal operators
& cruise lines
Green Cruise
Port, 2017a
14 Separate passenger
traffic flows
A separation of passenger traffic flows from service traffic flows could increase the
safety of terminal operations.
Terminal
operator(s)
Green Cruise
Port, 2017a
15 Separate handling
and service areas of
different vessels
A separation of handling and service areas of different vessels could help to avoid a
passenger mix and, thereby, ensure reliable terminal operations.
Terminal
operator(s)
Green Cruise
Port, 2017a
16 Organize terminals
check-in & check-
out operations
The organization of terminals and terminals operations in such a way that – even in
the case of a short port time and larger cruise vessels – check-in and check-out can
be organized at the same time.
Terminal
operator(s)
Green Cruise
Port, 2017a
* Depending on port management model
Objective: Manage the growing passenger flows from cruise port operations
17 Limit of cruise
vessel calls and / or
passengers
To mitigate the negative effects from cruise tourism, some ports have limited the
number of vessels calls or passengers. The absolute limitation either refers to the
number of vessels and passengers for a certain period or length of stay. An
absolute limitation in the numbers appears to yield positive effects for the
destination. At a port of analysis, the limitation of vessels and passengers turned
out to lead to positive effects from the view of passengers, the local tourist industry
as well as from the perspective of the cruise shipping line. Whilst some shipping
lines changed their routes and called on another day, some guests visited the port
on another occasion. Interesting to point out is that this cruise port location has
Municipality &
terminal
operator(s)
Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 71
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
been ranked as the number one in “non-crowded” cruise port of all cruise port
locations in that country. At a port of analysis, an envisioned limitation by means of
pricing through port fees according to capacity utilization did not bring the expected
positive effect. It should also be mentioned that at a port of analysis, the overall
number of cruise tourists does not represent a problem. What causes bottlenecks at
this port of analysis is that cruise tourists show up in large numbers simultaneously
within a spatially limited location. The load exceeds the local capacity and causes
temporary bottlenecks.
18 Equalize cruise
vessels and
passengers spatially
or temporarily
Instead of a limitation of cruise vessel calls and cruise guests, a spatial or temporal
equalization of calls and guests could contribute to the sustainability of a cruise
port. A spatial or temporal equalization of calls could be achieved by means of a
refusal of inquiries, capacity utilization-based pricing and cooperation of ports. With
regard to the spatial equalization, it is important to point out that this option is less
desirable if this leads to a loss of cruise vessel calls and a loss in revenues and
profit. Spatial equalization is able to play to its strengths and can be implemented
more easily, if calls at separately operated ports are aligned to each other and all
participating port benefit. However, it must be clarified as to whether such
agreements fall within the scope of a ban on cartels. Of those measures, only
cooperation of regional ports has been realized. However, it is still too early to make
definitive statements on the results.
Municipality &
terminal
operator(s)
Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
19 Attract visitors to
surrounding areas
An option to reduce the load on cruise port locations is to attract more visitors to
surrounding areas of the cruise port location and, thereby, achieve a higher spatial
equalization. This requires, on the one hand, a greater choice of activities in
surrounding areas, and, on the other hand, more intensive marketing of surrounding
areas. For instance, the provision of an application for mobile devices could make
visitors aware of points of interest in surrounding areas. However, since the point of
Local tourism
service agency
Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 72
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
interest is often the city center itself, there are still doubts about the success of
these measures. At a port of analysis, an app for mobile devices has been
implemented to make visitors aware of points of interest in surrounding areas. The
early results turned out to be dissatisfying; this may, however, change overtime. At
another port of analysis, an audio online and offline mobile app with information on
the cruise port city, a City Guide recommended and implemented. The application
provides visitors with information on sights, activities and mobility (See Klaipeda
Audio Guide in app stores).
20 Monitor and control
the number of
visitors
The monitoring and controlling of the number of tourists in certain districts of cruise
port cities could help to control the overall number of visitors. Conducted pilot
projects include measures, such as surveillance cameras to measure the number of
visitors, mobile phone position data to monitor traffic flows, a slot booking for
busses to control the effects from drop-offs as well an application for mobile devices
in order to encourage traffic equalization.
Municipality, local
tourism service
agencies and tour
operators
Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
21 Limit number of
group sizes of land
excursions
The limitation of group size, limitation of number of busses and allowable time, e.g.
a slot system for busses and individual attractions, could lead to a higher spatial
equalization of visitors. A study on tourism crowding points out that the impact the
cruise guests have on the cruise port location not only depends on the number of
passengers, but also on the structure of passengers. The structure may range from
largely children up to passengers at an average age of 77. This has an effect on the
impact of this measure. With regard to a specific cruise port location, is was stated
that tourism crowding does not represent a fundamental, ubiquitous problem. There
still seems to be room for further growth in that specific cruise port location.
However, the solution will be to better equalize the number of visitors throughout
the city.
Municipality, local
tourism service
agencies & tour
operators
Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
22 Hold regular At a port of analysis, in spring and autumn, an annual meeting with members of the Municipality, Green Cruise
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 73
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
meeting with
relevant
stakeholders
city, the cruise port company, the airport, the local tourism service agency takes
place in order to coordinate the entirely of activities and services. The study points
out that it is of particular importance, that the port company provides the other
stakeholders with information. This allows for further coordination among
stakeholders and services. A regular meeting with relevant stakeholders could allow
to coordinate the entirely of activities and services better.
cruise terminal
operator(s), airport
company & local
tourism service
agency
Port, 2018c
23 Carry out
infrastructure
amendments
The realization of infrastructure amendments at infrastructure bottlenecks could
reduce the load of the number of tourists on the city center. At a port of analysis,
infrastructure amendments would reduce to load of the number of tourists on the
city center. However, due to the World Heritage status of the city center, the
recommended change of the infrastructure cannot be realized. Likewise, due to the
large size of tourist groups, bottlenecks typically come into existence at
infrastructures, such as bridges and narrow sidewalks / lanes. However, this
infrastructure can often not be extended or not to the necessary extent.
Nonetheless, what could possibly be done is a relocation of bus stops to different
locations.
Municipality Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
24 Carry out
communication
campaigns
Communication campaigns could include campaigns that aim at visitors to be
behaved in a considerate and respectful manner as well as campaigns that aim at
residents and the local population to recognize the importance of visitors and
enhance the reputation of cruise tourism. Moreover, a communication campaign
could also include recommendations to non-cruise guests to avoid a cruise port
location during peak periods.
Municipality, local
tourism service
agency, visitors &
residents
Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
25 Bring together
vendors of local
products and
shipping companies
Events where producers and sellers of local products as well as shipping
companies meet in order to increase the sale of local products and services could
raise the acceptance of cruise tourists by locals.
Local producers,
tourism service
agency, terminal
operator(s) &
Green Cruise
Port, 2018c
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 74
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
meet shipping lines
Objective: Demonstrate positive economic effects from cruise tourism
26 Apply common
standards for
economic impact
studies
With regard to the cruise sector’s contribution to the local economy, a general
differentiation can be made between passenger, crew and ship expenditures.
Economic impact assessments of cruise tourism in port cities can thereby help to
identify such positive economic impacts and should be based on shared standards
and common indicators in order to ease clarity of calculations and ensure
comparability between studies. Tourist and cruise line expenditures in cruise
destination regions do thereby constitute direct effects to the local economy that
increase the value added and contribute to the generation of jobs in the region.
Based on the direct beneficiaries’ demand for inputs, input-output-models allow for
the calculation of indirect economic benefits in terms of value added, jobs and
income generated in upstream sectors of the economy, thus spreading the effect of
cruise tourism into other economic sectors. Based on the spending of those
employees who are directly or indirectly employed as a result of the local cruise
business, further induced effects on output, value added and employment can be
calculated which are, inter alia, concentrated in the retailing and consumer good
sectors, residential housing as well as personal and health services. Personal
earning multipliers can thereby be used to calculate corresponding effects.
Municipality, port
authority, tourism
boards & cruise
destination
associations
Green Cruise
Port, 2017d;
Green Cruise
Port, 2017e
27 Define common set
of indicators for
benchmarking
Whereas the application of shared standards may facilitate the elaboration and
understanding of economic impact assessments, benchmarking may further help in
the proper assessment of the industry’s local impact as well as of measures and
actions related to cruise tourism. A common set of indicators may not only focus on
the tourism sector but on the destination as a whole. While some measures may be
optional, all should be clearly defined. Apart from economic issues, also socio-
Municipality, port
authority, tourism
boards & cruise
destination
associations
Green Cruise
Port, 2017d;
Green Cruise
Port, 2017e
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 75
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
cultural and environmental factors as well as governance and external chances and
threats should thereby be considered.
28 Base cost benefit on
cruise tourism’s
wider impact
Besides the consideration of business aspects, potentially negative economic
impacts of cruise tourism have to be managed, inter alia, including noise levels,
waste, water, air quality, and energy efficiency. Respective cost benefit analysis
should be based on adequate standards and cruise ship charges as well as
passenger fees may be adapted to cover the total costs of port operations.
Municipalities &
port authority
Green Cruise
Port, 2017d;
Green Cruise
Port, 2017e
29 Create policy
framework for intra-
regional cooperation
Cruise destinations should engage in cooperation with other involved stakeholders
from the region as well as cruise lines in order to develop a comprehensive policy
framework for sustainable cruise tourism within the context of a destination’s long-
term operations capacity. By taking joint actions against a rundown, overcrowding
and a loss of the destination’s original authenticity as well as potential unwanted
social impacts, a sustainable and lasting development of cruise tourism shall be
ensured, thus safeguarding a maximum economic benefit to the destination city and
the region.
Municipality, port
authority & tourism
boards
Green Cruise
Port, 2017d;
Green Cruise
Port, 2017e
Objective: Change cruise line behaviour towards a greener port stay
30 Set clear goal on
what to achieve with
green port dues
Prior to the introduction of green port dues or any economic incentive for more
environmentally-friendly port stays, ports should set goals regarding the anticipated
effects of the to-be-introduced environmental charging system. The ex-ante
establishment of clear objectives is thereby, inter alia, necessary in order allow for
benchmarking and later evaluation of a charging scheme and as a substantive
basis for any potential future adjustments to the green port incentives. Given the
fact that ports often operate in complex and integrated urban environments, the
elaboration and formulation of such anticipated goals may thereby be done in close
cooperation in between the port administrations and the respective local and
Municipality & port
authority
Green Cruise
Port 2018f;
Green Cruise
Port 2018j;
COGEA et al.
2017
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 76
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
regional authorities.
31 Consider the cruise
sector’s specific
characteristics
Environmental incentive schemes are currently applied in various ports throughout
the BSR and beyond and mainly contain differentiated charges in form of discounts
or rebates on the applicable port tariffs, e.g. depending on a vessel’s environmental
performance. While several green discount schemes equally apply for general
cargo shipping as well as the cruise sector, the latter has specific characteristics
that should be considered when implementing corresponding charging systems. In
particular, the cruise sector would particularly benefit from a more consistent
approach on reductions on port dues as well as waste collection fees in all ports
throughout an operating area. Compared to other sectors of the shipping industry,
cruise lines may also take a higher marketing benefit from environmental
certification.
Municipality & port
authority
Green Cruise
Port, 2018f;
Green Cruise
Port, 2018e
32 Monitor and analyze
data on cruise ships
calling at the port
The availability of meaningful data on fuel consumption as well as on emissions of
individual ships is central to the ex-post evaluation of environmental incentive
schemes. If available, corresponding data could be of great value for an ex-ante
estimation of the expected environmental impact of a specific incentives scheme.
With regard to carbon dioxide, the European Union’s MRV Regulation provides an
EU-wide legal framework for the monitoring, reporting and verification of the CO
2
emissions generated by maritime transportation. Complemented by additional
projects on the collection of further records on individual ships’ other emissions, a
corresponding set of data would not only allow for better benchmarking as well as
fine-tuning of indexes and certification programs but would also provide a well-
founded and resilient basis for the individual determination of green discounts and
rebates.
Multinational
institutions, central
governments,
municipalities &
port authority
Green Cruise
Port 2018f;
Green Cruise
Port 2018j;
COGEA et al.
2017
33 Establish After having defined the desired objectives of the Green Port Fee system (measure Port authority Green Cruise
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 77
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
environmental
pricing system on
transparent criteria
30) under consideration of the cruise sector`s specific characteristics (measure 31)
and development of an appropriate monitoring system (measure 32), the system
should be established in a cruise port. Any port pricing scheme providing
environmental incentives should be based on transparent criteria allowing for low
administrative complexity, cost-efficient implementation and easy comprehensibility
by all stakeholders involved. Linking the grant of discounts and rebates to
certifications and scores of existing and acknowledged environmental programs
and initiatives, such as the Environmental Ship Index (ESI), the Clean Shipping
Index (CSI) or the Green Award, may thereby offer the chance to keep local green
port incentive systems easy and transparent while, at the same, time reducing
administrative costs for port authorities and ship owners by allocating the
certification of a vessel’s environmental performance to third party organizations.
Port 2018f;
Green Cruise
Port 2018j;
COGEA et al.
2017
34 Incentivize voluntary
adoption of stringent
standards and
procedures
Recent research suggests that incentive schemes granting rebates to vessels that
exceed given IMO standards on a voluntary basis can result in notable reductions
of CO
2
emissions, even if only a small share of the fleet is eligible. Moreover, port
incentive schemes may support the voluntary compliance of procedures that reduce
external effects and that are not necessarily bound to the deployment of new ships.
With lower speeds having a positive effect on fuel consumption and emissions, slow
steaming-discounts in port dues may reward vessel operators that voluntarily
reduce speed. Applied in the Port of Long Beach, vessel operators participating in
the Green Flag-program can thereby earn port fee reductions of up to 25% if they
lower speed to 12 knots within a 40 nm zone to the port and 15% if they slow down
from 20 nm to the port. Evidence suggests that more than 90% of all vessels
comply with the 20 nm speed limit, resulting in reduced emissions in the port area.
Given the cruise industry’s high degree of time scheduling and generally good on-
time performance, corresponding time buffers may thereby be well in-advance
Port authority Green Cruise
Port 2018f;
Green Cruise
Port 2018j;
COGEA et al.
2017; Gibbs et
al. 2014
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 78
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
plannable into cruise schedules. Moreover, it should be noted that slow steaming in
port areas only would probably not require additional ship capacity.
35 Try to define
common criteria for
environmental
charges
While a sheer top-down approach with any too stringent and centralized provisions
may fail to consider the individual ports’ specifics, a coordinated proceeding (e.g. on
the EU level) may yet improve the effectiveness of green port incentives and
environmental charging schemes. Ship owners may, inter alia, benefit from the
application of EU-wide common standards on classification criteria for vessels while
port administrations and operators may, at the same time, maintain their autonomy
on the determination of the ports’ individual tariffs and the specific designs of their
respective incentive schemes. A register of common conditions and independent
certification programs entitling for environmental rebates may support the creation
of a level playing field between ports while offering ship owners a portfolio of
different options that bring access to discounts and rebates.
Multinational
institutions, central
government, port
authority &
environmental
certification
initiatives
Green Cruise
Port 2018f;
Green Cruise
Port 2018j;
COGEA et al.
2017
36 Base incentivizing
charges on wider
environmental
benefits
While it is important to know the costs related to port infrastructure provision and
port operation, potential costs incurring from the introduction of green port dues and
economic environmental incentives should be assessed in the context of their wider
environmental benefits. If rebates or discounts linked to a green charging scheme
result in a loss of revenue on the port operator’s side, it could thus be balanced by
local public authorities considering the scheme’s overall environmental benefits,
such as improvements in air quality. Any potential compensation mechanism would
thereby reflect the general principle that the costs incurred by green port incentive
schemes which provide benefits to the overall community should be borne
accordingly.
Central
governments,
municipality & port
authorities
Green Cruise
Port 2018f;
Green Cruise
Port 2018j;
COGEA et al.
2017
37 Establish a common
platform for
As illustrated above, any port charging scheme providing environmental incentives
may not be seen as a static but should rather undergo continuous monitoring. In
Multinational
institutions, central
Green Cruise
Port 2018f;
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 79
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
# Action Description Responsibility Source
collection of insights
on green incentive
schemes
this regard, both a scheme’s actual performance as well as external developments,
such as technological progress, may result in revisions and adaptions of applicable
discounts and rebates. With current research showing that many port authorities
and operators are still in a learning phase, it appears recommendable to establish a
neutral platform that collects learning insights and allows for periodic discussions on
new developments and best practice examples on green incentive schemes. By
involving various stakeholders (e.g. cruise lines) such a platform could not only
foster the diffusion of experiences made by individual ports, but also be of benefit
for the overall and industrywide acceptance of environmental charging schemes
while at the same time serving the implementation of new emission-reducing
technologies and processes in cruise ports.
government,
municipality, port
authority & cruise
lines
Green Cruise
Port 2018j;
COGEA et al.
2017
Source: HPC, 2019.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 80
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
3.4.3 Evaluation of Measures
While the previous two work packages focused on environmental aspects of cruise
tourism in the port areas, WP 4 aimed to strengthen sustainable economic effects
of cruise tourism in destination areas outside the terminal and port boundaries.
Due to the multidimensional nature of the work package´s objectives, the
corresponding measures identified in the previous section vary by required efforts
as well as their expected overall impact. For the evaluation of these measures, the
following two criteria – similar to the previous two WPs – are defined:
1. Impact on economic sustainability: this criterion describes the
suitability of proposed measures to contribute to a smooth seaside and
landside cruise terminal access as well as improved cruise traffic flows in
destination regions. Moreover, it relates to the suitability of the
corresponding measures to improve the documentation of economic
effects caused by cruise tourism and to provide incentives for green port
stays by cruise vessels.
2. Efforts for implementation: this criterion relates to capital and
operational expenditure as well as operational efforts, i.e. time and
resources required to implement a certain measure.
In order to evaluate their complexity and effectiveness, Figure 17 below provides
a graphical classification of the individual measures in terms of their expected
impact on the WP’s objectives as well as the efforts required for their
implementation.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 81
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Figure 17: Evaluation of measures – WP 4
Source: HPC, 2019.
Objective 1: Provide solutions for
nautical challenges / Improve
seaward accessibility
1. Extend berth and pier
infrastructure
2. Extendable and retractable
floating pier
3. Limit number of vessels and
passengers
Objective 2: Improve landside
accessibility & provide solutions
for sustainable public transport
4. Build train, tram or metro
stations
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 82
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
5. Provide bicycle lanes
6. Provide bus shuttle services
7. Provide a separate lane for
park and ride services as well
as private vehicle traffic
8. Offer airport or station check-
in at cruise terminals
9. Increase terminal capacity by
means of multipurpose
terminal buildings
10. Bundle supply and disposal
transports
11. Improve information
exchange between all
stakeholders
12. Provide adequate sign posting
to and from the terminals
13. Provide better information
about tour busses
14. Separate passenger traffic
flows
15. Separate handling and service
areas of different vessels
16. Organize terminals check-in &
check-out operations
Objective 3: Manage the growing
passenger flows from cruise port
operations
17. Limit of cruise vessel calls
and / or passengers
18. Equalize cruise vessels and
passengers spatially
19. Attract visitors to surrounding
areas
20. Monitor certain districts of the
cruise port location to control
the number of visitors
according the maximum
carrying capacity
21. Limit number of group sizes
of land excursions
22. Hold regular meeting with
relevant stakeholders
23. Carry out infrastructure
amendments
24. Carry out communication
campaigns
25. Bring together vendors of
local products and shipping
companies
Objective 4: Demonstrate positive
economic effects from cruise
tourism
26. Apply common standards for
economic impact studies
27. Define common set of
indicators for benchmarking
28. Base cost benefit on cruise
tourism’s wider impact
29. Create policy framework for
intra-regional cooperation
Objective 5: Change cruise line
behaviour towards a greener stay
30. Set clear goal on what to
achieve with green port dues
31. Consider the cruise sector’s
specific characteristics
32. Monitor and analyze data on
cruise ships calling at the port
33. Establish environmental
pricing system
34. Incentivize voluntary adoption
of stringent standards and
procedures
35. Try to define common criteria
for environmental charges
36. Base incentivizing charges on
wider environmental benefits
37. Establish a common platform
for collection of insights on
green incentive schemes
While measures, such as the provision of extended berth and pier infrastructures
as well as tram or metro access, are assumed to have a high impact on an
enhanced terminal accessibility, they are most likely subject to high
implementation efforts and construction cost, thus resulting in a fair overall score.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 83
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
The same score is thereby achieved by a number of measures that are expected to
yield a medium impact with medium efforts assumed for their implementation.
Among others, these include the optimization of processes on passenger and
service management at cruise terminals as well as smaller infrastructural
measures, such as the provision of adequate maneuvering areas for busses and
service trucks. Moreover, a number of measures focusing on methodological
issues regarding the documentation of the sector’s regional economic benefits fall
in this category.
By contrast, a fair amount of measures with an expected high impact on the
corresponding objectives in combination with medium efforts anticipated for their
implementation are assigned a good score. Among others, these include measures
on smaller infra- and superstructures (e.g. floating passenger bridge) as well as a
better interconnectivity between cruise terminals, public transportation and air
transport (e.g. airport check-in). In addition, measures aiming at a better intra- and
interregional cooperation as well as the implementation and improvement of green
charging schemes frequently receive a good or even very good score.
In Section 4, the most promising measures are presented in detail.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 84
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
4. GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT
STAKEHOLDERS
The Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 at hand aims to support the cruise
port industry turn environmental challenges into opportunities. This
section presents and discusses the most promising measures to achieve
the ambitious sustainability goals defined in the most efficient manner.
As part of the Green Cruise Port project, various studies and workshops have been
carried out to gather knowledge on how to reduce port and cruise vessel related
emissions in the port area and foster the level of economic sustainability. To
complement these knowledge, also external studies and publications have been
considered in the Action Plan. Based on this approach, a comprehensive database
had been compiled, containing numerous measures to prevent or minimize
ecological damages from port and vessel operations and strengthen economic
effects of cruise tourism (see Section 3.2 – 3.4). In the following sub-sections, the
most promising measures identified are presented. For the evaluation of measures,
not only the sustainability impact of a measure (e.g. in terms of emission
reduction potential) but also the effort for implementation had been assessed.
4.1 Overall Sustainability Goal 1
Ensure to Meet Growing Sustainability Requirements and Reduce Negative
Externalities caused by Port and Vessel Operations in Cruise Ports
Promising measures to reduce shipping emissions and waste in ports
Although most ship-related GHG, air and noise emissions take place at sea, the
most directly noticeable part of shipping emissions takes place in port areas and
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 85
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
port-cities. It is here that shipping emissions have the most direct health impacts.
Furthermore, shipping emissions in ports can represent a substantial share of total
emissions in the port-city. This highlights the importance of environmental and
social requirements for cruise lines.
An overview of the most promising environmental-friendly measures for cruise
vessels in ports is presented in Table 9
19
. It is suggested to, at least, evaluate the
implementation of the measures suggested.
Table 9: Top environmental measures for cruise vessels
Measure Area Emission focus Evaluation
GHG
Air
Noise
Impact
Efforts for
Implementation
On-shore power supply Ship-port interface
LNG PowerPac Ship-port interface
LNG bunkering
facilities: truck-to-ship
Ship-port interface
LNG Vessel fuels
Energy efficiency
measures
Vessel
Exhaust silencers Vessel
Source: HPC, 2019.
One of the most promising measures for reducing cruise vessels’ emissions in the
port area is on-shore power supply (OPS). While local air emissions can nearly
be eliminated, the actual GHG emission reduction potential depends on the
electricity generation mix of the grid. Field tests in the Port of Hamburg with a
cruise vessel that was located 12 hours at berth have shown that OPS can save
71% of SO
x
and PM
10
, 89% of NO
x
and 71% of CO
2
emissions in comparison to
the use of MDO / MGO. In addition, noise emissions can be reduced
considerably, in the range of 10 dB(A). The main challenges when introducing
cold ironing are power availability, the lack of technical standardisation of
connectors and capital requirements. In a comprehensive study conducted within
19
The most promising measures are those with a high impact/effort ratio, namely having a high impact on
environmental sustainability and, at the same time, requiring low effort for implementation
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 86
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
the frame of the Green Cruise Port project (Green Cruise Port, 2018a), it was
found that the establishment of OPS in the selected ports would require net public
investment in the range of 9-32 million €.
Alternatively to OPS, a mobile LNG Power Pac can be deployed in ports to
reduce a cruise ship’s emissions at berth. An LNG PowerPac can be placed on the
vessel as well as on shore and is capable of delivering power supply of up to 30
MW (according to the manufacturer's specification). Compared to conventional
marine diesel, an LNG barge emits almost no sulfur and PM. According to
manufacturer’s specification, the use of LNG also results in 20% less CO
2
and
almost 90% less NO
x
per ship call. The investment can be broken into the power
barge itself and the required onshore distribution (e.g. cable management).
Currently, the system is tested for container vessels in Hamburg. First trials show
promising results.
LNG as vessel fuel is an appropriate interim solution for achieving an emission-
free vessel operation. The LNG fleet has grown exponentially since the early
2000s and the fleet is expected to double and grow by another 123 vessels in the
next years (ITF, 2018). The CO
2
mitigation potential of LNG is proven to be
substantial with CO
2
reduction which ranges between 5-30% compared to the
heavy fuel oil. However, the total emissions of CO
2
-equivalents are not
necessarily in favor of LNG as marine fuel because of the release of unburnt
methane. This so-called “methane slip” occurs during the handling and
combustion process as well as during the bunkering phase. It is also important to
consider that the profitability of LNG for cruise ships depends upon future LNG
and fuel prices. Currently, fuel prices are cheap, hampering the economic
implementation of LNG for vessels. LNG might see a growing uptake in the short
and medium term as part of industry efforts to mitigate CO
2
emissions. However,
considering the negative impacts of LNGs (methane slip) and the relative CO
2
advantages of other cleaner alternative fuels (e.g. electric propulsion or hydrogen)
LNG might not be the most attractive long-term solution. For a part of the ferry
market, for example, it has turned out that electric power can be a relevant
solution for many shipping companies.
For the widespread usage of LNG, ports also need to provide LNG
infrastructure and bunkering possibilities. A comprehensive study carried out
within the frame of the Green Cruise Port project (Green Cruise Port, 2018ea)
compared alternative LNG infrastructure and bunkering possibilities. The authors
identified the “truck-based solution” as suitable way to provide LNG for vessels.
A truck-based solution is basically one (or more) trucks, which can be used to
supply small amounts of LNG directly to the ship without permanently installed
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 87
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
equipment. It can be combined with more trucks supplying LNG at the same time.
The truck-based solution only requires moderate investment and is relatively easy
to apply and operate. The costs of permanent solutions are significantly higher and
safety regulations are tighter from these installations. Hence, before choosing the
permanent solutions, demand should be rather high. In addition, enough space
must be available on the port’s premise to install stationary solutions. However, it
is important to note that logistics cost of the truck-based solution can be high,
depending on the distance between terminal and end-customer, and the bunkering
volume and speed is rather low. Finally, the presence of truck and bunker
processes may impact other quayside activities like passenger handling.
Another promising environmental measure – with a focus on noise emissions – is
the installation of exhaust silencers on vessels. In Green Cruise Port, 2018d, it
was found that in most cases, the ignition frequency of the generator engines is
dominant in the exhaust gas noise
20
. To reduce this noise, one suitable solution is
to apply a resonator type silencer at the exhaust gas pipe. This silencer can be
installed during a regular port call and is estimated to cost between 10,000 € and
20,000 € including installation. It is worth noting that OPS is even more suitable
to reduce exhaust gas noise for a vessel located at berth. However, not each port
can be equipped with such a system. In addition, the noise emissions during
maneuvering cannot be reduced through OPS. It is noteworthy that in modern
cruise ships, the described noise attenuation measure is already in widespread use.
Promising measures to reduce port-related emissions and waste
Not only the cruise vessel but also the port itself causes GHG, air and noise
emissions as well as waste in the port area. As revealed in Section 3.1, these
derive from three main sources:
Pier & cargo handling equipment (CHE);
Road (external) traffic; and
Terminal buildings.
Table 10 reveals the most promising measures to reduce these port-related
emissions and waste in cruise ports. Again, for the evaluation two criteria have
been considered: the impact on reducing emissions and waste as well as the efforts
for implementing a measure (for details see Section 3.3).
20
Long-term monitoring was carried out at six positions over the period of one year.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 88
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Table 10: Top environmental measures for cruise ports
Measure Area Emission focus Evaluation
GHG
Air
Noise
Waste
Impact
Efforts for
Implementation
Target to reduce
emissions
Whole port area
Obtain “green” energy Whole port area
HVAC system
optimization
Terminal building
Eco-driving lessons Pier & CHE
Electrification Pier & CHE
Waste fee reduction Whole port area
LED technology Terminal building
Solar photovoltaic Whole port area
Source: HPC, 2019.
After setting an appropriate emission baseline and prioritising pollutants, a team
should set up an emission target in terms of percentage of emission baseline in a
given year. Goals help measure progress towards a target, making energy
efficiency and emission mitigation efforts more tangible and yielding quantifiable
results. Energy and emission saving goals also spur innovation and can help
motivate employees and shareholders engaging in energy efficiency and
environmental-friendly measures. The efforts for implementation are moderate;
however, the goal must be realistic. To set an emission-reduction objective, for
example, a detailed emission inventory and forecast must be available.
Nevertheless, it is strongly recommended to define concrete emission reduction
targets in future.
One further measure with a high impact on reducing GHG and air emissions that
is also relatively easy to implement for (cruise) ports is obtaining green energy
from energy producers. It is important to note that the actual emission reduction
potential depends on the currently used energy mix of the port. Moreover, the
additional cost of procuring “pure” renewable energy may vary considerably from
country to country. Nevertheless, this measure is considered to be very promising
for improving the carbon footprint of a port. Even if no renewable energy can be
procured, this measure can be implemented by “carbon offsetting”. Carbon offset
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 89
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
is a reduction in emissions of GHG made in order to compensate for or to offset
an emission made elsewhere – e.g. by investing in wind-power projects at home.
Offering employees in cruise ports eco-driving lessons is a suitable mean to
reduce energy consumption, but also GHG, air and noise emissions, of cargo
handling equipment, cranes and vehicles. Previous field tests in other ports
showed promising results. At the EUROGATE Container Terminal in
Bremerhaven, for example, average fuel savings of 7% per operating hour were
achieved with the help of eco-driving in straddle carriers without increasing the
time required for the tasks (ESPO, 2014). Other positive effects of reduced speed
and eco-driving are lower stress levels and improved control (Swiftly Green,
2015). An electrification of the existing cargo handling and vehicle fleet also
offers significant future potential for a terminal operator since battery-powered
vehicles require up to 30% less fuel compared to conventional designs. In
addition, local GHG and air emissions can be eliminated, and engine noise be
reduced significantly. However, operators should expect to make major
modifications at the terminal level. This is mainly because of the extensive battery
charging times, necessary employee training activities and the planning,
installation and operation of a charging infrastructure on the premise. Finally,
battery-powered vehicles are still much more expensive than conventional ones.
As revealed in Section 3.1, the major energy user of a cruise terminal is usually
the heating, ventilation and air condition system (HVAC). Therefore, it is highly
recommended to optimize a terminal’s HVAC system.
Regular maintenance of the HVAC system serves to keep the equipment
running efficiently to maximize HVAC energy efficiency. Various studies
have shown that air conditioning maintenance helps a unit to maintain up to
95% of its original efficiency. On the other hand, a neglected system loses up
to 5% efficiency each year that it goes without air conditioning maintenance.
Further benefits are fewer and less costly repairs or an extension of equipment
lifetime.
Adjusting the desired air temperature closer to the ambient air temperature
will save significant amounts of energy consumption; reducing the indoor
temperature in summer from 25.6° to 22.2° had been shown to reduce energy
consumption by up to 40% on average.
Buildings should ideally also be divided into thermal zones with separate
controls based on space functions. The radiant heaters should be controlled by
timers or occupancy sensors to minimize their operation when areas are
unoccupied. It is advisable to control the units of the terminal’s demand-based
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 90
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
ventilation based on the content of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and room air
temperature (Green Cruise Port, 2017f).
To improve the waste management of cruise port terminals, reduced waste fee
can be offered for vessels which sort the waste on board. This would encourage
shipping lines to introduce a sorting system on board (if not already in place) and
increase the effectivity of the resource disposition of the waste disposal
companies. A variation of this approach is followed by the Port of Helsinki where
vessels are granted a 20% fee reduction for waste disposal if they also dispose of
their wastewater. The implementation of a sorting system on board is very much
depending on the design and the spatial capacities of the different types of vessels.
While new build cruise ships usually have a waste sorting system implemented in
their initial design and can therefore easily comply with the requirements of this
measure, older vessels may have difficulties to implement such a system due to
lack of storage capacity for different types of waste. The attempt of a reduced port
fee in case of wastewater disposal, however, requires no implementation effort on
the part of the cruise vessels. This measure would result in improved planning
opportunities for the waste disposal companies since they would be able to
organize their transport resources according to the individual amounts and types
of waste.
The carbon footprint of a terminal building can be improved slightly with
moderate efforts by replacing conventional light bulbs by LED lights. While the
initial cost of installing LEDs is typically higher than conventional lighting
options, energy savings and reduced maintenance can result in a return on
investment (ROI), being realised in a relatively short timeframe. Real case
scenarios suggest that energy savings can amount to between 55-60%; while
maintenance costs can fall by up to around 90%. Ports that have introduced newer
lighting technologies often report other operational benefits. For example,
improved lighting tends to improve safety and result in reduced operator fatigue.
New lighting technologies also allow operators to have greater control over how
light sources affect the surrounding environment in terms of light pollution, light
spill, and glare. Finally, LED lights can be programmed and dimmed to reduce
energy consumption and light pollution.
In terms of ease of installation and maintenance, solar power is clearly the most
convenient way to generate renewable electric energy and thus most suited for
cruise port terminals. The carbon footprint of a cruise port terminal can be
reduced by using the thus generated “carbon-free” energy. The special advantages
of solar power compared to other renewable energy sources are its low
maintenance requirements, the limited space requirements, the direct energy
production and the economic feasibility. To prevent a disturbance of daily cruise
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 91
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
port operation, the required solar modules should be installed on a terminal’s roof.
Excess energy generated can be feed into the grid and thus contribute to the steady
supply of renewable energy of the whole region. However, it is important to note
that the feasibility of using solar power depends very much upon local conditions
(e.g. electricity prices, solar radiation or existing building design).
4.2 Overall Sustainability Goal 2
Accommodate the projected growth in the number of cruise passengers as
well as the steady increase in vessel size in the long term and strengthen
sustainable economic effects
As part of the Green Cruise Port project, various studies and workshops have been
carried out to gather knowledge on how to:
Improve the seaward and landward accessibility;
Develop solutions for sustainable public transport to manage the growing
passenger flows; and
Demonstrate the positive economic effects from cruise tourism and to change
cruise line behavior.
In the preparation of the Action Plan, both internal project results as well as
external studies and publications have been considered. Based on this approach, a
comprehensive database has been compiled, containing numerous measures to
improve the level of economic sustainability of cruise tourism. In the following,
the most promising measures (for detail, see Section 3.4) are presented. Both the
estimated impact as well as the effort to put these actions into practice have been
considered to recommend effective and efficient actions.
Table 11: Top economic sustainability measures for the cruise
sector
Measure Impact on Evaluation
Seaward
accessibility
Landward
accessibility
Passenger
flows
Economic
effects
Cruise line
behaviour
Impact
Efforts for
Implementation
Provide adequate sign posting
Limit number of group sizes of
land excursions
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 92
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Measure Impact on Evaluation
Seaward
accessibility
Landward
accessibility
Passenger
flows
Economic
effects
Cruise line
behaviour
Impact
Efforts for
Implementation
Hold regular meeting with
relevant stakeholders
Bring together local vendors
and shippin
g
lines
()()
Establish “Green Port Fees”
Incentivize voluntary adoption
of strin
g
ent standards
Extend berth and pier
infrastructure
Source: HPC, 2019.
One of the most promising measures to improve the landward accessibility for
passenger, cargo and service traffic to and from the cruise terminal, is the
provision of adequate sign posting for vehicles. This is because the expected
impact on traffic flows is high whilst the expected effort of implementation is low.
Even though this measure will not reduce the total number of vehicles, it can help
to reduce the duration of stay and, especially during peak times, allow for
smoother inbound and outbound traffic flows.
High numbers of visitors at the same time and same location place high demands
on the capacity of existing infrastructure and impair passenger traffic flows in
cruise port locations. Whilst infrastructural measures may lead to an
improvement, these measures may either be difficult to realize or undesirable in a
specific location. For this reason, a limitation of the number of people within a
group can help to reduce the load on infrastructure and allow for a smoothening
of pedestrian traffic flows. A limitation in the number of people could be achieved
directly by setting a limit to group size or by setting a limit to the duration of stay,
respectively by limiting the number of people at specific locations. It must,
however, be point out that a reduction of group sizes would reduce the number of
passengers that can take part in an activity / excursion. To ensure that – despite a
reduction of the capacity of specific activities / excursions – there is still a
sufficient offering for passengers to leave the cruise vessel, additional activities
must be offered.
The high volume of passenger and cargo traffic during peak times could also well
be addressed by a better provision and coordination of services provided by the
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 93
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
various stakeholders. Cruise terminal operators, the municipality, public and
private transport operators as well as local tourism agencies could exchange
information and coordinate their activities better on a regular and frequent
basis. The expected impact can be high; due to the number of different
stakeholders and services to be coordinated, the necessary expected effort for
implementation is fair.
A promising measure to increase the acceptance of cruise tourism by residents and
the local population are events where vendors of local products and services
meet with cruise shipping lines in order to assess the opportunities for product
and service placements and sales. Whilst the impact on the acceptance of cruise
tourism is expected to be fair, the effort for implementation is expected to be low.
An environmental pricing by means of port dues should be done on the basis of
clear and well-defined criteria. In order to limit the effort of classifying vessels
according to environmental criteria, certifications and scores of existing and
acknowledged environmental programs and initiatives may be used. A consistent
approach on green port incentives for the cruise sector would support the
industry’s own efforts while, at the same, time being neutral to competition
between destinations. The impact is expected to be high; the effort for
implementation is expected to be low. For the successful implementation, the
objectives of the environmental pricing scheme should be clearly defined.
Environmental pricing would set a market price for allegedly costless goods and
services and allow for an active regulation.
Another measure that promises a high impact on sustainability and low effort for
implementation is the creation of incentives for voluntary adoption of more
stringent standards and procedures as part of green pricing schemes. Granting
rebates to vessels that exceed current IMO standards on a voluntary basis can
thereby result in notable emission reductions, even if only implemented by a small
share of the fleet. Moreover, financial incentives may be used to promote the
voluntary application of emission reducing procedures such as slow steaming in
port areas. A higher adoption of more stringent standards and procedures would
reduce negative externalities.
If the existing infrastructure cannot accommodate larger vessels or if the existing
infrastructure will not be able to do so in the future, an extension of the length
and depth of piers and berths would allow accommodating larger cruise vessels.
Although this measure requires a high expected effort for implementation, the
expected impact is at the same time high. For this reason, an extension of berth
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 94
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
and pier infrastructure is regarded as an important measure that should be
considered.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 95
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
5. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
Achieving a high level of sustainability can be considered as the key prerequisite
for a further growth of the cruise industry worldwide. As laid out in detail in this
report, reducing the negative environmental impacts of cruise port operation is
especially important in the light of increased customer environmental awareness
and increasingly strict environmental regulations.
The project partners of the Green Cruise Port project (see Section 1.2) are thus
fully aware that fostering sustainability and reducing the negative environmental
impacts of cruise port operations is essential to continue the success story of the
cruise sector. The goal of the Action Plan was therefore to assist the Green Cruise
Port project partners and other involved stakeholders in improving both their
environmental and economic sustainability, thus achieving a “green cruise port
transformation”. To this end, a broad range of measures was identified and
evaluated that can be implemented to:
Meet growing sustainability requirements and reduce negative externalities
caused by port and vessel operations in cruise ports; and
Accommodate the projected growth in the number of cruise passengers but
also the steady increase in vessel size in the long term and strengthen
sustainable economic effects.
For the identification of potential measures, studies and workshops carried out
within the frame of the Green Cruise Port project but also external studies have
been considered; more than 100 measures have been thus compiled and
prioritised.
Even after this comprehensive study, open questions need to be addressed in the
future. First of all, the Action Plan should be periodically evaluated and adjusted
to the current market environment and technical innovations (e.g. emission-free
port technology). In addition, it is of paramount importance to consider that the
actual implementation of the plan is entirely within the partner's scope of
responsibility. The implementation phase includes putting into place the
(proposed) measures and associated data-gathering programs to evaluate
performance over time. Important to note here is that each organization may have
its own formal processes in place through which it must implement the plan.
In addition, the following aspects need to be considered in future for a successful
implementation of the Green Cruise Port Action Plan:
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 96
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
1. Before actually selecting and implementing measures, it is suggested to first
define specific and ambitious but also realistic and achievable
sustainability / emission reduction targets (see Sections 2.4 and 4).
Ideally, the project partners should work together and define common
targets.
2. The evaluation of measures rather provides a general assessment of their
expected effort and impact. It is strongly recommended to assess measures
for each individual case as their impact and effort is strongly case
dependent (e.g. as a result of prevailing space restrictions).
3. Government interventions can help to accelerate the commercial viability
and technical feasibility of certain, promising measures. In particular,
various policies and regulations – e.g. low carbon fuel standards – could
support their uptake. Further, financial institutions could develop green
finance programs to stimulate sustainable cruise tourism. It is thus
recommended to further promote the project partners’ sustainability efforts,
if required.
- While some measures (e.g. installing LED lights) can be implemented by
the port itself, other ecologically promising solutions still require funding
as these are not economically viable for the port (e.g. OSP) of cruise line.
4. One of the keys to the successful development the Green Cruise Port Action
Plan is to further engage all relevant stakeholders throughout the
implementation and monitoring of the actions. The port sector cannot
operate in isolation from its local, city or municipality institutions, and
neither can it conduct its business without integrating its efforts with
responsible agencies, government institutions and industrial organizations.
5. Cooperation and coordination between ports and ship owners is essential
for implementing many promising measures in practice. For example, for
the success of onshore power, ports need to agree on certain standards. In
addition, the introduction of Green Port Fees or Waste Fee Reduction
programs need to be coordinated between (competing) ports.
6. Information about opportunities to improve the level of sustainability in
cruise ports should be more available not only to other ports but also to the
public and other relevant stakeholders.
To sum up, although the Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 provides valuable
insights in how to achieve a sustainable cruise port operation, further efforts are
needed. In particular, the suggested measures need to be implemented under
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 97
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
consideration of the references listed above. An overview about the recommended
next steps, after the publication of the Action Plan, is highlighted in Figure 18.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 98
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Figure 18: Recommended next steps for the project partners
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 99
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
6. LITERATURE
Green Cruise Port Studies (all studies available: www.greencruiseport.eu)
Green Cruise Port (2014) – UNICONSULT Universal Transport Consulting
GmbH: Assessment of the cruise market in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR)
and the neighboring North Sea area in the light of SECA/NECA
regulations, November 2014.
Green Cruise Port (2016a) – Conference Declaration from the Opening
Conference, September 2016.
Green Cruise Port (2016b) – Workshop Report Green Cruise Port Innovative
Waste Management and Reception Facilities, Helsinki, 10.-11.11.2016.
Green Cruise Port (2017a) – Workshop Report: Maritime and Landside Traffic
Challenges of Cruise Terminals, Rostock, 30.03.2017.
Green Cruise Port (2017b) – Port of Helsinki and Ecobio Ltd: Green Cruise Port
Waste Management – Port Reception Facility: Cost Efficiency and Future
Prospects Report.
Green Cruise Port (2017c) – Workshop Report: Modern Cruise Port Architecture,
Tallinn, 18.-19.05.2017.
Green Cruise Port (2017d) – Workshop Report: Measurement of regional
economic effects caused by cruise tourism, Gdansk, 26.-27.06.2017.
Green Cruise Port (2017e) – Maritime Institute in Gdansk: Common standards in
the measurement of economic effects by cruise tourism.
Green Cruise Port (2017f) – Port of Tallinn and AS Sweco Projekt: Sustainable
energetic solutions for cruise terminal buildings in Northern Climate.
Green Cruise Port (2018a) – Bergen og Omland Havnevesen and DNV GL:
Onshore Power Supply for Cruise Vessels – Assessment of opportunities
and limitations for connecting cruise vessels to shore power.
Green Cruise Port (2018b) – Rostock Port GmbH and Baltic Marine Consult /
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH: Nautical Simulation Study, (Part I,
09.05.2016; Part II, 02.01.2017; Part III, 31.03.2017; Part IV, 10.01.2018).
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 100
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Green Cruise Port (2018c) – Rostock Port GmbH and CPL Competence in Ports
and Logistics GmbH / NIT Institut für Tourismus- und Bäderforschung in
Nordeuropa GmbH: Tourism Crowding in Cruise Ports – A Comparative
Study.
Green Cruise Port (2018d) – HPA Hamburg Port Authortity and DW-Ship-
Consult GmbH: Technical noise investigations at a Hamburg City cruise
terminal.
Green Cruise Port (2018e) – Port of Esbjerg, COWI A/S and Kosan Krisplant
A/S: Business Plan (A 2.3.2) / Sustainable Energy Supply & innovative
Solutions for Emission Reduction "Green bunkering of cruise vessels with
sustainable fuel options”.
Green Cruise Port (2018f) – Workshop Report: Port Dues and other incentives for
Greener Cruise Ports, Riga, 25.-26.04.2018.
Green Cruise Port (2018g) – HPA Hamburg Port Authortity and DW-Ship-
Consult GmbH: Emission sources and possible mitigation measures of
cruise terminals.
Green Cruise Port (2018h) – Klaipeda State Seaport Authority and PERITUS
Partners: Study on Klaipeda City Accessibility for Passengers of Cruise
Ships; Passenger Behaviour and Smart Traffic Links with the City and the
Near-Hinterland of cruise ports by including additionally IT-based
functionalities / solutions i.e. creating a software on accessibility and
guidance – SUMMARY.
Green Cruise Port (2018i) – Workshop Report: Workshop – Cruise Port
Newcomer Infrastructure Solutions - Green bunkering of cruise vessels
with sustainable fuel options, Esbjerg, 06.-07.06.2018.
Green Cruise Port (2018j) – Maritime Institute in Gdansk: Port dues strategies and
incentives for cruise line companies for using green port feature.
Green Cruise Port (2018k) – Port of Tallinn, AS Sweco Projekt, and Salto AB
OÜ: Building Design Documentation of Cruise Terminal in the Old City
Harbour Port of Tallinn – Summary of the Design Documentation.
Green Cruise Port (2018l) –Port of Tallinn, AS Sweco Projekt, and Salto AB OÜ:
Building Design Documentation of Cruise Terminal in the Old City
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 101
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Harbour Port of Tallinn – Explanatory Report of Preliminary Building
Design Documentation, Outdoor Space and Landscaping.
Green Cruise Port (2018m) – Port of Tallinn, AS Sweco Projekt, and Salto AB
OÜ: Building Design Documentation of Cruise Terminal in the Old City
Harbour Port of Tallinn – Explanatory Report of Preliminary Building
Design Documentation, Architecture.
Green Cruise Port (2018n) – Port of Tallinn, AS Sweco Projekt, and Salto AB
OÜ: Building Design Documentation of Cruise Terminal in the Old City
Harbour Port of Tallinn – Explanatory Report of Preliminary Building
Design Documentation, Interior Architecture.
Green Cruise Port (2018o) – Port of Tallinn, AS Sweco Projekt, and Salto AB
OÜ: Building Design Documentation of Cruise Terminal in the Old City
Harbour Port of Tallinn – Plans and Renderings.
Green Cruise Port (2018p) – Workshop Report: Passenger Travel Behavior and
Smart Traffic Links with the City and the Region, Klaipeda, 17.-
19.10.2018.
Green Cruise Port (2018q) – Rostock Port GmbH and DW Ship-Consult:
Feasibility of noise monitoring in the cruise port of Warnemünde.
Green Cruise Port (2018r) – Rostock Port GmbH and NIT Institut für Tourismus-
und Bäderforschung in Nordeuropa GmbH et al.: Rostock Cruise Tourism:
Local Economic Impact and Customer Satisfaction.
Green Cruise Port (2018s) – Rostock Port GmbH and SeaConsult HAM GmbH:
Dimensions of Ocean-going Cruise Vessels Study on the Development of
Cruise Ship Sizes and Capacities with Focus on the Baltic Sea Region.
Other Studies
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) (2016): The 2016
International Energy Efficiency Scorecard, Washington, DC.
Anderson, B., et al. (2015): Study of Emission Control and Energy Efficiency
Measures for Ships in the Port Area. London, UK: International Maritime
Organization (IMO).
Baltic Ports Organization (2017): The Baltic Sea as a model region for green ports
and maritime transport, Tallinn, Estonia.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 102
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Bazari, Z. and Longva, V. (2011): Assessment of IMO Mandated Energy
Efficiency Measures for International Shipping. MEPC 63/INF.2.
International Maritime Organization, London.
Behörde für Umwelt und Energie (BUE) (2017): Luftreinhalteplan für Hamburg
(2. Fortschreibung), Öffentliche Auslegung zur Einsichtnahme gem. § 47
Absatz 5a Satz 7 BImSchG vom 3. bis zum 17. Juli 2017, Hamburg, 2017.
Bouman et al. (2017): State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for
reducing GHG emissions from shipping – A review, Transportation
Research Part D.
California Lighting Technology Center (2015): Saving Energy in Buildings with
Adaptive Lighting Systems, Energy Research and Development Division,
Final Project Report.
CALSTART (2012): Hybrid Yard Hostler Demonstration and Commercialization
Project, Pasadena, California.
CLEANSHIP (2013): Clean Baltic Sea Shipping, Study published as part of the
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.
COGEA (Consulenti per la gestione aziendale) (2018): Study on differentiated
port infrastructure charges to promote environmentally friendly maritime
transport activities and sustainable transportation, Study prepared for the
EU Commission.
CR Ocean Engineering: North American and North Sea/Baltic Emission Control
Areas (ECAs), https://www.croceanx.com/about-us/514-2/.
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) (2017): Cruise Baltic Market
Review, Hamburg, Germany.
Dearman Technology Centre (2017): Dearman zero-emission Transport
Refrigeration System, http://dearman.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/Dearman-Product-Brochure_web.pdf.
DIN EN 16258:2013-03: Methodology for calculation and declaration of energy
consumption and GHG emissions of transport services (freight and
passengers, BSI Standards Publication.
DNV GL – Maritime (2017): Particulate Matter and Black Carbon – The global
impact and what this means for shipping, Hamburg Germany.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 103
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Electrek (2018), All-electric ferry cuts emission by 95% and costs by 80%, brings
in 53 additional orders, https://electrek.co/2018/02/03/all-electric-ferry-
cuts-emission-cost/.
Emerson Network Power (2016): Energy Logic: Reducing Data Center Energy
Consumption by Creating Savings that Cascade Across Systems,
Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Energy Star (2015): 12 Ways to Save Energy in Data Centers and Server Rooms,
https://www.energystar.gov/products/low_carbon_it_campaign/12_ways_s
ave_energy_data_center.
European Commission (2018): Reducing CO2 emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles, https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/heavy_en.
European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO) (2018): Environmental Report 2018,
Brussels, Belgium.
Fathom, F. (2015): The Ship Operator's Guide to NOx Reduction, Windsor:
Fathom Maritime Intelligence.
FCBI energy (2015): Methanol as a Marine Fuel Report, Prepared for Methanol
Institute.
Fung, F., Zhixi Z., Renilde B. and Barbara F. (2014): Prevention and Control of
Shipping and Port Air Emissions in China, Natural Resources Defense
Council.
GenCat (2017): Regenerative Diesel Particulate Filter (CRT),
http://www.gencat.co.uk/crt.asp.
Gibbs, D., Rigot-Muller, P., Mangan, J. and Lalwani, C. (2014): The role of sea
ports in end-to-end maritime transport chain emissions. Energy Policy.
Green and Effective Operations at Terminals and in Ports (GREEN EFFORTS)
(2013): White paper#6 – Geothermal energy and heat for ports and
terminals, Project co-funded by the European Commission within the
Seventh Framework Programme.
Green and Effective Operations at Terminals and in Ports (GREEN EFFORTS)
(2014): Deliverable 12.1 – Recommendations Manual for Terminals,
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh
Framework Programme.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 104
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) (2017): Port of Hamburg - Air Quality
Management, NABU conference "Greening Ports".
IEA Bioenergy (2017): Biofuels for the marine shipping sector – An overview and
analysis of sector infrastructure, fuel technologies and regulations, EA
Bioenergy: Task 3.
IMO (2016): Methanol as marine fuel: environmental benefits, technology
readiness, and economic feasibility, Air pollution and energy efficiency
study series, No. 5, International Maritime Organization (IMO), London.
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (2016): IMO Train the Trainer (TTT)
Course on Energy-efficient Ship Operation Module 5 - Ship Port Interface
for Energy Efficiency, London.
International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2015): Third IMO Greenhouse Gas
Study 2014, London.
International Maritime Organization (IMO): International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
International Transport Forum (2015): Cruise Shipping and Urban Development -
State of the art of the industry and cruise ports, Discussion Paper 14,
https://www.itf-oecd.org/cruise-shipping-and-urban-development.
International Transport Forum (ITF) (2018): Decarbonizing Maritime Transport –
Pathways to zero-carbon shipping by 2035, Part of the ITF programme on
Decarbonising Transport.
Lloyd’s Register/UMAS (2018): Zero-Emission Vessels 2030. How do we get
there?, Low Carbon Pathways 2050 Series.
Mark J. M. Sullman, Lisa, D. and Pirita, N. (2015): Eco-driving Training of
Professional Bus Drivers - Does it work? Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies.
Pavlic, B. et al. (2014): Sustainable port infrastructure, practical implementation
of the green port concept. Thermal Science.
Port Equipment Manufacturers Association (PEMA) (2017). Lighting
Technologies in Ports and Terminals, Brussels, Belgium.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 105
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
Rosone, M. C. (2016): Top 11 Ways to Get Better HVAC Energy Efficiency,
https://aristair.com/blog/top-11-ways-to-get-better-hvac-energy-
efficiency/.
SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd. (2017): White Bay Cruise Terminal - Cruise
Operations, Final Noise Impact Mitigation Strategy, Report Number
610.13361.0020.
Svaetichin, I. (2016): Cruise ship generated waste in the Baltic Sea - A study from
the port's point of view on a possible updated waste management system,
Master Thesis, University of Helsinki.
Swiftly Green (2015): Greening of Port Operations: Best Practice Guide, Bremen.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2011): A Guide to Energy Audits,
Washington, 2011.
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) (2015): The Business Case for Green
Building, 2015, https://www.usgbc.org/articles/business-case-green-
building.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2018): Particulate Matter
(PM) Basics, https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution.
Universal Transport Consulting GmbH (2013): Pre-Feasibility Study –Assessment
of the cruise market in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) and the neighboring
North Sea area in the light of SECA/NECA regulations (2015), Hamburg.
University of California (2016): Assessment of Fuel Cell Technologies to Address
Power Requirements at the Port of Long Beach, Full Report
Verbeek, R. et al. (2013): Natural gas in transport: An assessment of different
routes, Joint report CE Delft, ECN, TNO.
Walter, J. (2012): Zur Auswahl von Abgaswäscher Systemen. Maritimes Cluster
Norddeutschland.
World Bank Group (1998): Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook,
Washington, D.C., World Bank Group.
World Maritime News (2016): IMO Designates North Sea, Baltic Sea as NECA.
2016. http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/205936/imo-designates-
north-sea-baltic-sea-as-neca/.
Green Cruise Port Action Plan 2030 106
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
World Ports Climate Initiative (2014): Carbon Footprinting Working Group –
Guidance Document, Los Angeles, 2014.
World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) (2018): LNG bunker infrastructure,
http://www.lngbunkering.org/lng/ports/lng-bunker-infrastructure.
