Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Sustainability challenges in shipping
Annik Magerholm FetProfessor, environmental management and life cycle
assessment,Department of Industrial Economics and Technology
Management
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, 18.02.04
2
Norwegian universities
3
NTNU – Trondheim
4
NTNU has 7 faculties:Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology
Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology
Faculty of Information Technology
Mathematics and Electrical Engineering
Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art
Faculty of Medicine
Faculty of Arts
Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management
5
My own background of relevance to shipping
Different research projects and consultancy work for the shipbuilding and shipping industry
PhD in "Systems Engineering Methods and Environmental Life Cycle Performance within Ship building and Shipping Industry“
6
1994
1998
2001
2004
Cleaner Production at
shipyards
Waste minimization,
shipyards
Enclosed systems for sandblasting
High pressure water blasting
Bottom hull cleaning water
treatment
System analyzis and
life cycle approach
Environmental management in a life cycle perspective,
methodlogical development for shipbuilding and shipping:
LCA and LCC
EPIs and EPE
EMS and EMAS
Manual for CP and
environmental management at
shipyards
Indicators and environemntal reporting
at shipyards
Indicators and environemntal
reporting in ship transport
Industrial ecology and eco-efficiency
sustainability reporting
7
Goal and scope
definition
Inventory analysis
Impact assessment
Interpretation
Direct applications: Product development
and improvement Strategic planning Public policy making Marketing Other
• Classification: the parameters from the inventory are noted under the relevant impact categories.
• Characterization: the relative contributions of inputs and outputs are assessed to their assigned impact categories.
• (Normalisation: the results are normalised against e.g. national figures)
• Valuation: the relative importance of different environmental impacts are weighted against each other.
LCA-methodology ISO 14040-48
8
The use of LCA in two projects:
1. ”Life Cycle Evaluation of shiptransportation - Development of methodology and testing”
2. “Environmental Performance of Transportation - A Comparative Study”
Cooperation between NTNU, Det Norske Veritas and Aalesund College.
Supported by Norwegian Ship-owners Association and the Norwegian Research Council.
9
”Life Cycle Evaluation of shiptransportation - Development of
methodology and testing” Goal: To demonstrate that the LCA-method is applicable for environmental life cycle evaluation for shipsCase study: M/V Color Festival
10
Studied system:
6. Machinerymaincomponents
2. Hull1. Shipgeneral
3. Equip.for cargo
4. Shipequip.
5. Equip.for crewandpassengers
7. Systemsfor machinerymaincomponents
8. Shipcommonsystems
COLOR FESTIVAL
20-26 Hullmaterials
27. Materialprotection, external
28. Materialprotection, internal
60. Dieselengines
63. Propellers
64 Boilers
System
Sub-systems
Systemelements
11
Flow chartHull materials
Construction
Operation
Maintenance
Scrapping
Sandblasting
Welding
Transport of steel
Cutting of steel shears
steel
Diesel
DieselSand
Electricity
Electricity
Emissions
Emissions
Transport ship todemolition yard
Cutting steelshears
Diesel
Electricity ScrapSteel for recycling
Emissions
Same processesas for buildingphase
EnergyRaw material Emissions
Materialloss
12
Environmental impact categories:
The impact categories for this evaluation are:• greenhouse effect, • ozone depletion, • acidification, • photo oxidant formation, • eutrophication, • winter smog formation, • ecotoxicity to water, • human toxicity, • solid waster, • material and energy use.
13
The ship’s life cycle phases’ contribution to the
environmental impact categories
14
Example: Comparing two antifouling
systemsNew system:
• 10% less use of primer and antifouling
• Water jet blasting instead of grit blasting during maintenance.
• Docking every third year.
• 20% less leakage of TBTO during operation.
• 5% increase in fuel consumption.
15
Characterisation results for comparison of two
systems
16
Conclusions from the LCA-project:
• LCA can be applied but it is very time consuming Existing valuation techniques in LCA-tools should be
used critically. The choice of functional unit is important when
different systems are to be compared against each other.
The most important environmental aspects from the life cycle of a ship are:
fuel combustion with related emissions and leakage from antifouling during the operation of the ship,
cleaning and recoating during maintenance, non-recyclable materials and local pollution in the
scrapping phase.
17
The project ”Environmental Performance of
Transportation - a Comparative Study” The goal was to establish models and
guidelines for the documentation and comparison of environmental performance of different transport chains.
This required:• a common set of environmental impact
categories for the transport sector, and• principles on how to allocate infrastructure
activities to the environmental burden of the transport chain.
18
Case 3: Transport of frozen fish
Chain A
Chain B
Term o Tra ile r H F R /N orfrig
R oad Å lesu n d - O s lo , K ie l - P a ris
R oad tran sp ort
H arb ou rs in O s lo an d K ie l
M /V K ron p rin s H ara ld(o r M /V P rin sess e R ag n h ild )
W ate rb orn e tran s p ort
C h a in B
Term in a l in I jm u id en
Term o Tra ile r H F R /N orfrig
R oad I jm u id en - P aris
R oad tran sp ort
H arb ou rs in Å les u n d ,M å lø y an d I jm u id en
R oR o-sh ipM /V N ord ja rl
W ate rb orn e tran s p ort
C h a in A
19
Inventory results (per ton fish)Impact category Compound Chain A Chain B Charact. Contr. Normalisat.
Climate change CO2 84 kg 138 kg 1
N2O 0,24 g 0,71 g 320
CH4 1,5 g 4,4 g 25 EP(j) 55 598 000 000
Acidification SO2 938 g 867 g 1,00
NOX 1286 g 1802 g 0,70
NH3 0,022 g 0,064 g 1,88 EP(j) 237 448 000
Toxic contam. Pb (to air) (no data) (no data) 160
TBT 0,10 g 0,034 250
Cu 2 EP(j) 8 453 000
Local air pollut. particles 24 g 70 g 1 344 700 000
Photo oxid. form. NMVOC 36,6 g 106 g 1 24 800 000
Noise Area >55dBA 10,4 m2 94 m2 1 36 146 088 884
Eutrophication NH3 0,022 g 0,064 g 3,64
NOX 1286 g 1802 g 1,35 EP(j) 671 081 500
Energy consump. MJ 930 MJ 1812 MJ 1 813 PJ
Land use Area (m2) 0,23 m2 0,66 m2 1 485 719 000
20
Normalised inventory results
0
0,000000001
0,000000002
0,000000003
0,000000004
0,000000005
0,000000006
0,000000007
0,000000008
0,000000009
0,00000001
Climate change Acidif ication Toxiccontamination
Photo oxidantformation
Local airpollution (dust)
Noise Eutrophication Energyconsumption
Land use
Impact categories
Rel
ativ
e co
ntr
ibu
tio
n
Transport chain A
Transport chain B
21
Valuation
• The Eco-indicator 99• EPS• The ExternE Methodology• Valuation according to political goals• Valuation according to panel procedures• Valuation according to the
recommendations in the OECD project on Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST)
22
Weighted results, case 3:
According to political goals
Transport chain A Transport chain B
Land use
Energy consumption
Eutrophication
Noise
Dust
Photo oxidant formation
Acidification
Climate change
Transport chain A Transport chain B
Land use
Noise
Particulates
VOC
NOX
CO2
According to the EST-project
23
Case 2: Passenger transportation
Svolvær
Chain A - waterborne
Chain C – Road-waterborne
HSLC trp.system Aircr. trp. system Road trp.system Ferry trp.system
Bodø harbour Bodø airport Road Skutvik harb.
Chain B - Aviation
Road trp.system
Road
HSLC
Svol. harbour
Aircraft Taxi Ferry
Svol. harbour Svol. airport
Taxi
24
Interpretation
HSLC chain Aircraft+taxi chain Car+ferry chain
Land use
Energy consumption
Eutrophication
Noise
Dust
Photo oxidant formation
Acidification
Climate change
According to political goals/priorities
According to the EPS-method
CO2CO2
CO2Fuel
Fuel
Fuel
NOx
NOx
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
HSLC chain Aircraft+taxi chain Car+ferry chain
EL
U/p
as
se
ng
er
25
Interpretation according to recommendations in the EST-project
HSLC chain Aircraft+taxi chain Car+ferry chain
Land use
Noise
ParticulateVOC
NOX
CO2
26
Eco-efficiencyreporting
Environmentalreporting
Ecologic aspects
Economicaspects
Social aspects
Sustainability reporting
Socio-ecologic indicators
Eco-efficiency indicators Socio-economic indicators
27
The Eco-efficiency Concept
Eco-efficiency = product or service value environmental influence
Eco-efficiency indicator = economic performance indicator environmental performance indicator
28
Important initiatives:• UNEP stands behind the Global Reporting Initiatives
(GRI), established in 1997. New framework 31.August 2002.
• For OECD it became a key priority already in 98 to integrate environmental, economic and social considerations.
• The WBCSD is united by a shared commitment to sustainable development. Eco-efficiency is at the heart of its philosophy.
29
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) - guidelines • the first global framework for comprehensive
sustainability reporting, encompassing the "triple bottom line"
• will become the generally accepted, broadly adopted framework for communicating information about corporate performance.
• give guidance to reporters on selecting and using indicators.
30
”It was the GRI reporting process that prompted our announcement last fall to increase the fuel efficiency of our fleet
by 25 percent by 2005.”Deborah Zemke,
Director of Corporate Governance,
Ford Motor Company,
April 2001
31
THE GRI-INDICATOR FRAME-WORK
32
Indicators and sustainability reporting
Environmental performance indicators can be selected according to the OECDs EST recommendations: land use, noise, particles, VOC, NOx and CO2.
The indicator-values per unit transport can be calculated based on the following input parameters: fuel consumption, distance, emission factors, engine power and exploited capacity
According to GRI a sustainable development report shall also present social and economic performance indicators
33
Some important questions:
Which environmental, social and economic performance indicators are of relevance for shipping?
Who are the most relevant stakeholders that can give input?
How can the indicators be used to communicate the wanted information from shipping companies to the stakeholders and interested parties?
34
Why am I at Lloyd’s? I have a sabbatical year, the objective is to update my knowledge
on selected topics:• The first six weeks at Lloyd’s Register, theme: SUSTAINABILITY
REPORTING. • Springtime in Norway following up my research projects• The autumn at the University of California Santa Barbara,
theme: SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT ADRESSING ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES.
Objective of my project at Lloyd’s: • to study and develop methodologies and indicators for reporting
of environmental performance of transport systems, especially for the maritime sector, hereunder also methodologies for comparing and ranking of environmental performance.
Indicators and reporting requirements were pointed out as an important area for future development by the EU-thematic network TRESHIP where LR by Gill Reynolds was one partner.
35
Results so far:• Overview of the most recent documents on
sustainability reporting and assurance of such. This is documented in a report which I will use as a basic for further work this year, as teaching material for my student and in other research projects.
• Participated in meetings at – UCL – Systems Engineering,– the institute of marine engineering, science and
technology (IMarEST), – the Royal Academy of Engineering, – the Institute of Mechanical Engineering (IMecE). In addition I have had telephone contacts and e-mail
contacts with other important institutions/organisations.
36
Further collaboration:Gill R. and I have the outlined a preliminary draft of a
scientific paper addressing the following aspects:• International strategies on sustainability and why focus
on sustainability in shipping• Survey of the documents that point out the direction and
challenges to sustainability reporting for the transport sector, especially for maritime transport
• Survey of how this is practiced by transport companies (state of the art), and which sustainability indicators that are in use already
• Recommendations for shipping on how to select the most appropriate indicators to meet the future challenges for sustainability reporting in shipping, and the use of the reports as a communication tool with the stakeholders and interested parties.
The plan is to submit this to The journal of Engineering for the maritime environment (?) within ????.
37
OTHER CURRENT WORKFunded by the Norwegian Research Council:Program Productivity 2005, Industrial Ecology: • Leader and co-ordinator for the research
program, 01.06.03 – 31.12.05• Research strategy "Eco-effective value
chains", 1999 – 31.12.05Program PULS:• Eco-efficiency and value chains in the
common goods market, 2003-2004. Funded by Innovation – Norway:• Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)
and Product Specific Requirement (PSR) for Nordic furniture
38
PhD-students
• Dahlsrud, A.: Environmental management and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
• Michelsen, O.: Eco-efficiency and value chains
• Schau, E.: Environmental analysis of the value chain of fish emphasising the fishing vessel
• Andersen, K.: Environmental auditing in local communities
