A relationship between port profiles and policies regarding the circular economy A policy study of a selection of ports in Hamburg - Le Havre range July 17, 2016 Susan Vermeulen 381177 Erasmus School of Economics – Erasmus University Rotterdam Abstract This study shows that policy regarding the circular economy can be related to the port profile. The circular economy is a concept for a new kind of industrial economy, where products have a closed loop.
81
Embed
Circular economy within ports of Hamburg – Le … · Web viewoil and other harmful substances (Bonn Agreement, 2001). Therefore ports in Hamburg-Le Havre range have begun implementing
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A relationship between port profiles and policies regarding the circular economy
A policy study of a selection of ports in Hamburg - Le Havre range
July 17, 2016
Susan Vermeulen
381177
Erasmus School of Economics – Erasmus University Rotterdam
AbstractThis study shows that policy regarding the circular economy can be related to the port profile.
The circular economy is a concept for a new kind of industrial economy, where products
have a closed loop. The three R’s –reuse, reduce, recycle – are often used for an
implementation of the circular economy. The environmental and policy plans for the future
years have been investigated if ports have policy relating these concepts. Afterwards, this
has been presented in a table and a comparison between ports could be made. It has shown
that not all the policy decisions can be related to the port profile, however the most important
one can be related. Furthermore, the study has shown that small ports with a high share in
dry bulk must implement more new solutions than containerised ports.
ContentsPage
I. Introduction 2
II. Theoretical framework 4
i. Linear economy 4
ii. Circular economy 4
iii. Shift from linear economy to the circular economy 5
iv. Types of closed loops 5
v. The circular economy in the port 5
vi. Port competition 6
vii. Port profile 7
III. Data and methodology 8
i. Selected ports 8
ii. Port profile 9
iii. Method of research 10
iv. Overview of the documents 10
IV. Results 12
i. Policies of the Port Authority 12
ii. The differences between the policies 15
iii. Port profile 17
iv. The relationship between the port profile and policy 20
V. Conclusion 24
i. Limitations and recommendations 26
VI. Bibliography 27
VII. Appendix A: policy overview 36
VIII. Appendix B: differences between the policies 42
IX. Appendix C: port profile - graphical overview of types of throughput 47
X. Appendix D: port profile – main activities and characteristics 50
XI. Appendix E: Overview of documents used for the port profile 53
1
IntroductionIn December 2015 an historical climate conference was held in Paris. At this congress
countries from all over the world agreed to reduce level of the rise of greenhouse-gas
emissions to two degree Celsius. The aviation and maritime sector were excluded from this
agreement (United Nations, 2015). The maritime sector accounts for three percent the global
warming and aviation accounts for approximately five percent. Over the last decades their
emissions have risen twice as fast as the global emissions. If this stays unregulated, they
could make up 39 percent of the global emissions in 2050 (World Maritime News, 2015).
Therefore it is of importance that governments and port authorities take action. Port
Authorities have clustered together to start the world ports climate initiative (WPCI). This
initiative is being used to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and improve air quality. Many
European and American ports have joined the WPCI. Unfortunately, most ports located in
Asia, especially China, have not joined yet (WPCI, sd).
In Europe, there has been paid attention to pollution for a longer period of time. In 1983 the
Bonn Agreement was signed. This is an accord between North European countries about
dealing with pollution in the North-Sea regarding oil and other harmful substances (Bonn
Agreement, 2001). Therefore ports in Hamburg-Le Havre range have begun implementing
environmental regulations over a long period of time. Port authorities often use data of CO2
emissions, NOx emissions, PM10 and SO2 to monitor their emission output. The Port of
Antwerp has a sustainability report, where the decreases of these emissions are observed.
These reductions can be achieved by restrictions of the Port Authority, but also by efforts of
companies. For example the reduction of sulphur is mainly thanks to refineries and the
introduction of low sulphur fuel for vessels (Port of Antwerp, 2015b). Thence the
measurement of the effectiveness of environmental regulations is hard, because the external
effects cannot be excluded.
Furthermore an important trend that is observed in the Hamburg-Le Havre range is the
circular economy. The circular economy is a vision which states that the economy must be
seen as closed-loop. This is not a coincidence, as McKinsey has calculated that fulfilment of
the circular economy would realise an extra 500 billion euros for the economy (Port of
Rotterdam, 2014a). Therefore Port Authorities are currently stimulating the use of the circular
economy, which might lead to a future cashflow.
In June 2015 the port of Amsterdam has published a report on achieving sustainable
competitive advantages. This report does not only mention the circular economy, but also the
bio-based economy (Kuipers, et al., 2015). The difference between the bio-based economy
2
and the circular economy is that the bio-based economy focuses on raw materials from the
nature and does not want to use fossil fuels, whilst the circular economy has a focus on a
closed-loop (Port of Amsterdam, sd). According to this report the rise of the circular economy
has different rationales. These reasons consist of the need of less dependence on fossil
fuels, a social demand of more understanding of the origin of products and reusing materials
and an increasing scarcity. However, the adaption of the circular economy must be within a
rational business model to establish attractiveness. Therefore the closed-loops must be
profitable. The metal sector already has a well-established closed-loop, otherwise there
would be a shortage of serval kinds of metal (Kuipers, et al., 2015).
A seaport can be used as two main functions. It can be used as a transport hub, but also as
a manufacturing location. A manufacturing location will become attractive due to clustering
activities (Kuipers, et al., 2015). The policy of the Port Authority regarding the circular
economy must be aligned with the function of the port. Furthermore each port in Hamburg-Le
Havre range has different profile, so each port should develop own policy that encourages
the implementation of the circular economy (Geng, Zhu, Doberstein, & Fuijta, 2009).
Therefore following research question will be answered in this thesis:
What are the differences between policies of the port authorities with respect to the
circular economy in a selection of ports in Hamburg-Le Havre range and can this
difference be attributed to the profile of the port?
To answer this question, a better knowledge is required of the circular economy and port
profiles. There will be explained what the difference is between linear economy and the
circular economy. The reason of the shift from the linear economy towards the circular
economy will be explained as well. Furthermore the difference between the two types of
closed loops will be made clear. There will also be attention towards the adaption of the
circular economy in the port. This will all be further explained in the theoretical framework.
Thereafter, the research method will be clearly justified in the methodology. There will be a
policy study on the basis of policy documents that are publicly available on the websites of
the ports. Furthermore three sub-questions are formed and will be answered in the results
with the information written in the reports of the port.
1. What are the policies of Port Authority in a selection of ports in Hamburg-Le Havre range?
2. What are the differences between these policies?
3. What are the profiles of these ports?
This will structure the answer of research question in the results. Consequently, a conclusion
can be formed. At last limitations of this study will be named and recommendations for
further research are made.
3
Theoretical frameworkYou can divide the industrial economy in two kinds: the linear economy and the circular
economy (Greyson, 2006). Since the industrial revolution, the linear model is the most used
type. Recently, companies have recognized that this linear model is also accompanied by
risks (MacArthur, 2014). In 1966 economist Kenneth Boudling described the circular
economy. A model with long-term economic growth, sustainability and zero waste (Greyson,
2006).
First the linear model and the circular model will be explained in detail. Furthermore we will
look at the shift from the linear economy to the circular economy. Additionally there will be
made a difference in types of closed loops. Afterwards there will be a focus on the
implementation of the circular economy in ports. Subsequently competition between ports will
be discussed and lastly the different types of port profiles will be explained in further dept.
Linear economyIn the linear economy companies will extract materials, which will be used to make a product.
The product will be sold to a customer, who will dispose the product when it does not longer
serves its purpose (MacArthur, 2014). The customer is able to choose whether the product
will be recycled, reused or dumped (Stahel, 2016). Boulding notices that the linear economy
has negative external effects, such as pollution and exploitative behaviour. According to
Boulding the linear model results in immediate problems, but also has an incorrect long term
vision (Greyson, 2006).
Circular economyBoulding described a new type of industrial economy, which solves the problems that are
faced in the linear economy (Greyson, 2006). A product does not have an end-of-life
concept within the circular economy. It will be used again, hence it can be seen as a closed
loop. The circular economy is based on a few simple principles. Firstly, waste does not exist
and products must be designed for reuse or recycling. Secondly, there will be a strict
difference between consumable and durable products. Currently, consumable products are
often made of biological ingredients, which can be safely returned into the atmosphere, while
durable products are made of complicated technical components, such as plastics or metals,
which are not designed for reuse. The third principle is energy which is required for the
process should be renewable by nature (MacArthur, 2014).
These principles can be used for value creation, so that there is an increase in material
productivity. This can be divided into four arbitrage opportunities. The first arbitrage
opportunity is the power of the inner circle which refers to minimising materials, so the
product does not have to be adapted too much for reusing or remanufacturing. Secondly,
4
there is the power of circling longer which means maximizing the number of cycles and the
time of each cycle. Another arbitrage opportunity is the power of the cascaded use, which
refers to reusing across the value chain. Lastly, there is the power of pure inputs, which
means uncontaminated material streams increase assemblage and redistribution efficiency
while maintaining high quality standards (MacArthur, 2014). Often are the three R-principles
– reduce, reuse and recycle - named as possible approaches to reach a circular economy.
Many scholars tried to find a perfect system to shift to a circular economy, but found out that
it must be a tailored process (Yuan, Bi, & Morguichi, 2006).
Shift from the linear economy to the circular economyAn essential motive for adapting the circular economy is the scarcity of the raw materials
(Kuipers, et al., 2015). The scarcity leads to an increase in the prices which can already be
observed. The prices of commodities have risen with 150 percent from 2002 until 2010
(MacArthur, 2014). Furthermore the use of a circular economy becomes interesting for
companies, because it is uncorrelated with market fluctuations and geopolitical tensions.
Additionally governments are stimulating the use of the circular economy (Kuipers, et al.,
2015). The shift in consumers’ preferences away from ownership, also encourages
companies to use this model. Consumers are willing to share or use products instead of
owning the products (MacArthur, 2014). Moreover, consumers are willing to recycle more
than researches originally thought (Kuipers, et al., 2015). For companies, the circular
economy seems to cover more risks than the linear economy.
Types of closed loops A distinction between two types of closed loops can be made in the circular economy. There
is a global closed loop and a regional closed loop. The global closed loop is that the end-of-
use products are collected and returned to the country, where the product was
manufactured. These end-of-use products can be used in the production for a similar kind of
product. This product can be sold again in the global market. The regional closed loop is that
the products mostly stay in the countries where they are produced. The end-of-use products
will be collected and remanufactured in the same region and sold again in the same region
(MacArthur, 2014).
The circular economy in the portWhenever products are part of a global closed loop, waste and residual products can be
traded all over the world. If waste and residual products are traded oversees, ports are often
used as a node to change transport mode. Ports are used to perform value added activities
for all kinds of products, this can be implemented for waste and residual products as well.
Often waste and residual products have a relatively high added value, whilst other products
might have a lower added value. It can be even more profitable to execute these activities in
5
a port area due to clustering activities. Therefore a port would be a good location for value
added activities (Kuipers, et al., 2015). An important factor to eventually reach the point of a
complete circular economy is innovative solutions for new product design. Therefore a lot of
research and development must be done. A port authority could stimulate promising start-
ups to trigger innovation. On the long term, the global closed loops could be more regional
and then ports should search for new solutions for continuation (Kuipers, et al., 2015).
Port competitionPort competition is often defined as rivalry between ports, but not every port competes with
each port. Competition between ports occurs at three different geographical levels. Firstly,
there is competition between port-ranges. For example, Hamburg-Le Havre range competes
with the Mediterranean range. This type of competition often is rather small. Secondly, there
is competition within port-ranges, thus ports within Hamburg-Le Havre range are rivalries.
Furthermore there is competition between operators within the same port (De Langen &
Nijdam, Port Economics, Policy and Management, 2012). In this thesis the definition of
competition within port-ranges will be used when referred to port competition.
There are several factors that influence the competitiveness of ports. The most important
factor is location, the origin of the product or the destination in the hinterland influences the
choice for port. Secondly, the characteristics of the goods that are being shipped have
influence on this decision. Some goods require special facilities when they are handled and
not every port offers these facilities. Therefore are good characteristics an important factor
when choosing a port (De Langen, Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands;
the case of Austria, 2007). Furthermore the port tradition and organisation, the port
productivity, accessibility and the costs of the port can influence the competitiveness of the
port (Fleming & Baird, 1999).
State aid is an interesting factor influencing the competition in Hamburg-Le Havre range. In
Europe some ports are subsidized by their local and national authorities. Ports in some
countries have a commercial direction, however other countries use ports as a
macroeconomic instrument for creating employment opportunities. Therefore a difference
can be observed in the amount of employees of each port. This might influence the policy of
the port, but it is not very likely that it will influence the policy regarding the circular economy
(Trujillo & Tovar, 2007).
6
Port profileA port profile is necessary to compare ports, because some differences can be attributed to
the commodities that are handled (Merk & Notteboom, 2013). A port profile can be made in
various ways. There is not a standard definition of a port profile. Often the port profiles are in
various reports quite alike, however some are more extensive than other. Commonly used
are the percentages of the total throughput. In the report of Merk and Notteboom
percentages of dry bulk, liquid bulk, container, RoRo and other are shown in a graph, so the
degree of diversity and their most traded good can be observed (Merk & Notteboom, 2013).
The port profile of ESPO shows a similar scheme of throughput, but decides to use general
cargo and passengers and not the comprehensive term “other” (ESPO, 2014). However the
ESPO even went further a looked at the ownership of the port, geographic location and the
scale of the port (ESPO, 2014) (Darba, Pittam, Royston, Darba, & Journee, 2009).
The port profile of the ESPO includes a lot of aspects and gives a summary of the main
activities in the port which are contributing to the local pollution. Whilst only the total
throughput does not state anything for the local pollution, because a port can only be a
transport hub or also a manufacturing location. For example, there is a Volvo Car
manufactory located in Port of Ghent, whilst RoRo is only 4% of their total traffic (Port of
Ghent, 2015a). If there was not a car manufactory, their RoRo could also be 4%, however it
is impossible to interpret this number without context. Therefore there is chosen to use an
extensive port profile.
7
Data and methodologyIn this thesis qualitative research will be executed. Therefore a few details need to be
established. Firstly, the specific ports in Hamburg-Le Havre range need to be identified and
the reasoning underlying this choice. Furthermore the factors that are taken into account in a
port profile must be listed. Additionally, the method of this research will be specified. At last,
an overview of the policy documents that will be used in the comparison will be made.
Selected portsFive ports within Hamburg-Le Havre range are selected for the comparison. These are stated
below.
1) Port of Rotterdam
2) Port of Antwerp
3) Port of Hamburg
4) Port of Ghent
5) Port of Amsterdam
The Port of Rotterdam, the Port of Antwerp and the Port of Hamburg are chosen, because
they are part of the top three largest ports in Europe with regard to the total cargo volume
handled (AAPA, 2014) (Eurostat, 2014). Therefore, it only seemed logical to include them in
this comparison. These three ports differ quit a lot from each other. The Port of Rotterdam is
known as an energy port and has a large share of the crude oil imports (Port of Rotterdam,
2015a). Whilst the port of Hamburg has a reputation of a dry bulk port, with a focus on ores,
scrap and coal, but also has a lot of containers (Port of Hamburg, 2015a). At the same time
the Port of Antwerp has a whole other focus. It is the world’s largest coffee port and has the
largest discharge of bananas in the world (Port of Antwerp, 2014a) (Port of Antwerp, 2013).
These differences might influence their incentive to adapt their policy with regard to
sustainability and the circular economy.
Next to the top three largest ports in Europe, there is chosen for the Port of Amsterdam and
Port of Ghent. Port of Ghent is an interesting port to compare, because it claims to be the
largest bio port in Europe. It has a focus on transforming waste into raw materials and has a
lot of scrap and recycling centres. Furthermore it has a large assembly factory for cars and
trucks of Volvo Car (Port of Ghent, 2015b). The Port of Amsterdam has the highest
throughput in tonnages of gasoline in the world and the second highest throughput of coal in
Europe. It also has the highest throughput of cacao in Europe (Port of Amsterdam, 2014c).
Since the trend of renewable energy, gasoline and coal will become less interesting
8
commodities. It will be interesting to investigate if this has any effect on their policy regarding
the circular economy.
Port profileIn the theoretical framework, the decision has been made to use an extensive port profile,
which is similar to the port profile of the ESPO. Unfortunately, the port profiles of the ESPO
are not publicly available with the exception of the Port of Gothenburg, because they hosted
the ESPO congress in 2014 (ESPO, 2014). Therefore a similar port profile will be generated
from publicly available data, however an exact replica is not possible, thus a selection of the
aspects of port profile of ESPO will be made.
The port profile of Gothenburg starts with a graphical overview of the cargo volume in
tonnages. This covers 2009 until 2013 and has the following types of throughput in the chart:
total throughput, liquid bulk, general cargo, general cargo RoRo and solid bulk (ESPO,
2014). Our port profile will cover the years from 2010 until 2015. When looking at the fact and
statistics of several selected ports, the following types of throughput would be more logical in
our chart: containers, liquid bulk, dry bulk, RoRo, other general cargo (Port of Amsterdam,
2014c) (Port of Rotterdam, 2015c) (Port of Antwerp, 2015a). These types of throughput will
be put in a graphical chart as an overview.
Secondly, the main activities are named. They are divided into ten categories: general
manufacturing, chemical industry, ship building and repair, aggregates, marinas leisure,
petroleum product processing, storage and packaging, refrigerated cargo and fish market
and processing (ESPO, 2014). There also be looked into the scrap and recycling activities. It
would be harder to this information obtain from data, because the ESPO does obtain this
data from Ecoports, which is also not publicly accessible. However, main activities can
influence the policy a lot. On the websites of each port can be information found regarding
their main activities (Port of Amsterdam, 2014c).
Furthermore the geographical characteristics are specified. They are split into six categories:
estuary, river, marine inlet, protected coast, embayment and engineered coastline (ESPO,
2014). This division will be the same and the information of coastline type can be found on
the websites of each port (Port of Rotterdam, 2016b)
Another important aspect that the ESPO has written down in their port profile is the
ownership of the port. This is divided into eight options: state, region, province, municipality,
private industrial company, private logistics company, private equity fund or private financial
suitor and other (ESPO, 2014). This might have influence on their incentive to focus on the
environment and the public investments in the port. This information can again be found on
9
the website, however sometimes there must be searched thoroughly (Port of Hamburg,
2011).
Furthermore the ESPO has made a perfect overview the ownership and of the operating
functions in the port (ESPO, 2014). Unfortunately, this information is not presented very clear
on the websites of the port authority. Therefore there will be a smaller overview, which
consist of the ownership of the land and the main functions of the port authority (Port of
Hamburg, 2011). The ESPO also gives information of the direct employment, this data is
relatively easy to obtain (ESPO, 2014) (Port of Amsterdam, 2014c). Therefore this will also
be included in our port profile.
Lastly, the modal split of containers is given. This is divided into three categories: rail, road
and barge (ESPO, 2014). Road transport could influence congestion around the port and is
less environmental friendly than other intermodal transport (Kreutzenberger, Macharis,
Vereecken, & Woxenius, 2003). It would make the overview of the port complete, and
therefore the modal split will be given as well.
Method of researchFirstly an overview of the circular policies will be made. This will be extracted from the policy
documents in the overview, which is given below. The policies of different ports with the
same purpose will be matched and put in a table on the same row, so that there will be a
clear overview what the exact policies of the port authorities are. Often policies are focused
on the three R’s: reduce, reuse and recycle. Therefore there will be looked to policies with
regard to these three expressions. Additionally there will be a focus on the approach of waste
management of the port authorities. After the policies are put into an organized table
(Appendix A), the differences between the policies are outlined. These difference will be put
in a table again to ensure a straightforward image (Appendix B).
Furthermore the port profiles need to be compiled. Firstly the graphical overview of the total
throughput will be given (Appendix C) and the port profiles will be put in a table as well
(Appendix D). The information of these port profiles will be mainly extracted from the website
of the port authority, these documents are also stated in a table (Appendix E).
Overview of the documentsFirstly, an overview of the documents that will be used in the comparison of the policies of
the different ports will be presented on the next page. Unfortunately, not all port authorities
have a similar amount of policy documents available. For example, the port of Ghent did not
have their updated report of 2015 uploaded on their website. In the PERS environmental
report of 2013, they state that they will make a new report in 2015. Therefore, the table does
not include the most recent policy of the Port of Ghent, because it is not publically available.
10
Port Policy Document
Port of Rotterdam Port Vision 2030
Port of Rotterdam Uitvoeringsagenda 2015 Port Vision 2030
Port of Rotterdam Uitvoeringsagenda 2014 Port Vision 2030
Port of Rotterdam Havenafvalplan 2015
Port of Rotterdam Scheepvaart binnenvaart Faciliteiten
Port of Antwerp Jaarverslag 2011 (Masterplan Spoor)
Port of Antwerp Actieplan fijn stof en NO2 in de Antwerpse haven en de stad Antwerpen 2014-2018
Port of Antwerp Duuzaamheidsverslag 2015
Port of Antwerp Walstroom
Port of Hamburg Sustainability report 2011/2012
Port of Hamburg Sustainability report 2014
Port of Hamburg Brochure Smartport
Port of Hamburg Smartport Energy
Port of Ghent PERS: Environmental report 2013
Port of Amsterdam Port Vision 2030
Port of Amsterdam Walstroom
Port of Amsterdam Walstroom Riviercruise
Port of Amsterdam Havenbedrijf Amsterdam ontvangt internationale duurzaamheidsprijs
Port of Amsterdam Environmental Ship Index
Port of Amsterdam Nuon Hemweg power plant: On with energy
Port of Amsterdam Havenafvalplan
Furthermore the port profiles must be created. The documents that are used to create the
port profiles are listed (Appendix E). Most ports had enough data available for the graphical
overview of the total throughput (Appendix C), except for the port of Hamburg with regards to
the containers. The port of Hamburg expresses the containers only in TEU and not in metric
tonnes. Luckily the reports of the port of Rotterdam includes data of all the ports within
Hamburg-Le Havre range, therefore the data of the port of Hamburg was taken from these
reports. Unfortunately the report of 2010 was not available anymore, however other data
was found on a website. This data seemed quite evidential, because it fitted the graph and
corresponded with the data on the website of the port of Hamburg of the other commodities.
11
Another difficulty is the data of the modal split, because the ports all have different
interpretation and not every port has recent data available. Therefore the year and
sometimes the type of traffic will be given in the table of the port profile, so these numbers
must be interpreted as an indication of the modal split.
ResultsIn this section the results of the study of the policy documents will be shown. The results will
be divided in three questions. If we combine these answers, an explanation of research
question can be composed.
1. What are the policies of the Port Authority in a selection of ports in Hamburg-Le Havre range?
2. What are the differences between these policies?
3. What are the profiles of these ports?
Policies of the Port AuthorityEvery port authority has its own policy to implement the circular economy in the port. There
are quite a few differences, but first the policy related to circular economy of every port
authority will be specified.
Port of RotterdamThe port of Rotterdam has created PortVision 2030, a policy document which states their
goals that the port has to reach in 2030. One of these goals is being the number one port in
the new energy commodity CO2. The port authority will reserve space for carbon capture and
storage facilities, furthermore new pipelines will be constructed (Port of Rotterdam, 2011b).
ROAD is an initiative of Uniper Benelux and ENGIE Energie Nederland. Their goal is to
capture around 1.1 million CO2 on a yearly basis of an energy plant on the Maasvlakte two.
This project has already started and their aim is to learn more about carbon capture process
(ROAD2020, ROAD).
For reduction of the CO2 emissions the port authority has constructed a pipeline between the
Port of Rotterdam and Westland, where the greenhouses are located. Unfortunately this
pipeline is not used to its full capacity, because EU-regulation is not stimulating owners of the
greenhouses to use this CO2. Besides the CO2, a goal has been set that residual heat will be
transported to the greenhouse area and surrounding urban areas. Additionally the port
authority is constructing pipelines within the port area to connect businesses for an efficient
exchange of residual products (Port of Rotterdam, 2011b). The port has set up a company in
cooperation with VOPAK called Multicore, where companies are able to rent parts of this
pipeline to transport their chemical products (Port of Rotterdam, 2015e).
12
There will be a further reduction of CO2 by shift in modal split. There is a goal of operating
with electric trains, the cleanest trucks and inland vessels that use alternative fuels in 2030.
Additionally data exchange for nautical vessels, PortBase, will be utilized for an efficient
planning, which should lead to the reduction of CO2. PortBase is a cooperation with the Port
of Amsterdam (Port of Rotterdam, 2011b). Furthermore the port of Rotterdam has a
generator ban for inland vessels, which obligates them to use shore power. This should also
lead to a cut in CO2 (Port of Rotterdam, Scheepvaart binnenvaart faciliteiten). The port
authority is also stimulating recycling by reserving spots for innovative ideas and develop
business cases to create awareness (Port of Rotterdam, 2011b) (Port of Rotterdam, 2014a).
Additionally the port of Rotterdam has a few financial incentives to reward environmental
friendly vessels. There is a differentation between the port dues based on the Environmental
Ship Index, a deduction on the waste collection fee when vessels are using alternative fuels
and no fee for plastic collection due to Dutch regulation (Port of Rotterdam, 2014c).
Port of AntwerpThe port of Antwerp publishes a sustainability report every two years and has a focus on
waste collection. The port authority has active waste management since 1996. There are
three waste parks where inland vessels can drop their waste, which will be processed by a
waste collection company. Additionally the port authority gives advice about waste
management to companies and performs as a hotline for complains regarding liquid and dry
bulk waste. They also collect floating waste which will contribute to a safer and more
sustainable port. Furthermore the port authority tries to stimulate the exchange of residual
products between companies by constructing new pipelines in the Scheldelaan, where most
petrochemical companies are located. This idea is not only done with residual products, but
also with residual heat. Currently the residual heat is transported to six companies located in
the port area. This is such a success that the project will be expanded (Port of Antwerp,
2015b).
For a cut in CO2, the port authority has set up nine shore power installations for inland
vessels (Port of Antwerp, Walstroom). Besides this, a shift in modal split is desirable.
Therefore there will be invested more in infrastructure of the railway. Environmentally friendly
cars, trucks and vessels will be more promoted. For more support, there will be a limit on the
use of cars. The port authority also uses financial incentives to increase the attractiveness of
the use of environmentally friendly vessels. The port of Antwerp gives discounts on the port
dues based on the Environmental Ship Index, the use of alternative fuels and the use of
scrubbers, which is an air pollution control device that can be used to remove some
particulates from the emissions (Port of Antwerp, 2015b).
13
Port of HamburgThe port authority of Hamburg has a different approach to implementing the circular
economy. It tries to give a good example and gives support and knowledge to the
companies. The port authority tries to be an example as a port by recycling in the
headquarters and using recovered materials in road construction work. Furthermore it
executes material tests which can be used to develop recycling strategies for companies.
Another way of support is the data systems that they provide. For trucks they provide DIVA,
which optimises the traffic flow by port road management. Besides trucks, the port authority
provides a PortMonitor for nautical vessels. This system tries to optimize the nautical traffic
flow, hence there will be a reduction in emissions (Port of Hamburg, 2015b).
A shift in modal split is also preferable. Currently, the modal split of containers in Hamburg is
around 42.4% road, 45.3% rail and 12.3% barge. The shift should be from road to rail and
barge. Therefore the infrastructure of the inland waterways will be improved and financial
incentives will be implemented to make the use of railway facilities more appealing. There
are also financial incentives for nautical vessels, if they have a high Environmental Ship
Index score a discount will be given (Port of Hamburg, 2013). Additionally the port authority
offers a shore based power for vessels and floating power plants for cruise ships (Port of
Hamburg, SmartPort Energy). This will decrease the emissions. The port of Hamburg has
also agreed with the municipality of that in 2020 partially the energy that they produce comes
from renewable sources (Port of Hamburg, 2012). At last, the port of Hamburg offers a
combined heat and power schemes. Excess heat can be used to heat or cool buildings (Port
of Hamburg, SmartPort Energy).
Port of GhentThe port of Ghent has published an environmental report in 2013. In this report seems that
the port of Ghent sometimes is lagging behind with a focus the circular economy, because
they are often still studying the options. However the port of Ghent is used as a biobased
pilot plant in Europe. They are bridge between the scientific research and the industrial
production for the biobased industry. Therefore the port of Ghent has a focus on the
biobased industry and not on the circular industry (Flanders Cleantech Association, 2014)
(Port of Ghent, 2014b).
The port of Ghent is preparing specific business cases for the exchange of residual heat. The
port authority is also studying waste streams for the exchange of waste between companies.
The port authority already has implemented shore power for their own vessels, but are still
researching the options for inland vessels and cruise ships. Furthermore the port authority
wants to draw up a waste management plan, which should be finished in 2015, however it is
14
not published yet. Additionally the port authority provides information about maritime waste
and finances projects regarding recycling waste. Furthermore the port authority wants a
modal shift. They are promoting more sustainable options and are in focus groups to make
every transport mode more sustainable (Port of Ghent, 2014b). The port of Ghent is also
active in cleaning illegal dump sites and litter. A waste park has been realised in 2014 (Port
of Ghent, 2013b).
Port of AmsterdamThe port of Amsterdam is active promoting the circular economy. The residual heat of the
only coal-fired plant is currently transported into the city Amsterdam. There are 18,000
households which are using this heat and the residual heat will also be used to make asphalt
(Port of Amsterdam, 2014b). Furthermore they are supporting companies with new
innovative ideas, but are also developing new ideas itself.
Additionally the port of Amsterdam is investing in vapour recovery systems and a launder
emission systems to reduce emissions (Port of Amsterdam, 2013a). They even have a
platform where companies can exchange ideas and residual products. The port authority
uses active management on closing loops of companies and gives various training sessions
regarding recycling. They have an active waste management plan and a lot of recycling
companies are located in the port. The port of Amsterdam has even an energy plant which
can covert waste into energy (Port of Amsterdam, 2015a).
The port of Amsterdam desires a modal shift, therefore they are investing in the infrastructure
of the rail and waterways. They are using an information platform with sensors to optimize
the use of rail and inland transport. Additionally they offer shore power for inland vessels and
currently investing in shore power for inland cruises as well for a reduction in CO2 (Port of
Amsterdam, Walstroom Riviercruise) (Port of Amsterdam, Walstroom). Besides this
measure, the port authority offers PortBase, a data exchange system, which should lead to
more efficiency and therefore less emissions (Port of Amsterdam, 2015a). The port authority
also use financial incentives to increase awareness of sustainaiblitly. The port dues are lower
if the number on the Environmental Ship Index is higher. The waste collection fees are lower
if the vessels use gasoline, diesel or LNG and thanks to Dutch regulation there is no fee for
plastic collection. (Port of Amsterdam, Environmental Ship Index) (Port of Amsterdam, 2016).
15
Differences between the policiesThese policies have some similarities, but also differences. The most obvious similarity is a
discount on the port dues if the ship has obtained a high score on the Environmental Ship
Index.
Every port has a different solution of reusing residual heat. The port of Rotterdam choses to
share their residual heat with the greenhouses in the area, surrounding urban areas and
companies located in the port. Whilst the port of Amsterdam has chosen to only use the
urban areas. The port of Hamburg and the port of Antwerp both distributed residual heat to
companies located in the port. The port of Ghent is researching the best option. The
solutions of these ports are quite similar and based on the possibilities surrounding the port.
The selected ports all offer shore based power, however the expansion of the shore based
power differs. Hamburg has the most extensive shore based power stations, because they
also have floating power station for cruise ships. In contrast to the other ports, the port of
Rotterdam has a generator ban for inland vessels. These ships must use shore based
power. Furthermore the port of Amsterdam and Antwerp only have shore based power for
inland vessels, however the port of Amsterdam is investigating possibilities for shore based
power for inland cruises as well. The port of Ghent only has shore based power for their own
vessels, but is researching possibilities for inland vessels as well.
Another similarity is the shift in modal split that every port wants to reach. All the selected
ports want a modal split towards rail and inland shipping. Therefore, most of the ports are
improving their infrastructure for rail and waterways. Only the port of Hamburg gives financial
incentives to use the railway facilities. Besides the shift in modal split, the ports are trying to
stimulate environmental friendly vehicles. The port of Rotterdam is accepting only the
cleanest vehicles and electric trains in 2030, whilst the port of Ghent is engaged in projects
which have a focus on the sustainability of all transport modes. Both the port of Hamburg and
Amsterdam are using information systems to improve the efficiency and thus decrease the
emissions. However the port of Hamburg has a focus on port road management and the port
of Amsterdam tries to optimize rail and inland water transport, which corresponds with the
desire of shift in modal split.
A difference is that only three out of five ports use a data exchange system for incoming
vessels to improve efficiency, which should lead to a decrease in emissions. The ports that
have invested in such systems are the port of Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Hamburg. The
Dutch ports share a system, PortBase.
16
There is also a difference in the stimulation of the exchange of residual materials between
companies. The port of Rotterdam and Antwerp both build pipelines to increase this
exchange, whilst the port of Amsterdam encourages this by developing and supporting new
ideas. The port of Ghent is still executing studies which are aimed at the exchange of waste
streams. Unfortunately the port of Hamburg does not have certain policy with regard to the
exchange of residual materials.
Furthermore the stimulation of the reuse of residual materials has a different approach in
each port. The port of Rotterdam reserves spots for companies and develops business
cases. Whilst the port of Antwerp acts as a hotline for complains regarding waste and gives
advice about waste management. The port of Amsterdam has a quite similar policy as
Antwerp. They have active management on closing loops and offer a platform where waste
and knowledge can be exchanged. The port of Ghent provides information as well, but also
participates in financing recycling processes. While the port of Hamburg has an opposite
approach. It sets an example by using recovered materials in road works and executes
material tests to develop recycling strategies.
The stimulation of waste collection differs as well. The port of Rotterdam and Hamburg are
not very active in stimulation waste collection. The port of Rotterdam only has financial
incentives. Nautical vessels have to pay a lower waste fee if they use gasoline or LNG.
Vessels do also not pay a fee for plastic collection thanks to the current Dutch regulation.
The port of Hamburg tries to set a good example by recycling in the headquarters of the port
authority. The port of Amsterdam and Antwerp have a waste management plan and the port
of Ghent is drawing one up. In all these ports are waste parks. Especially in Amsterdam
there are a lot of companies that are specialized in recycling certain types of products. The
port of Ghent and Antwerp particularity point out that they collect floating waste and clearing
out illegal dump sites.
Furthermore the port of Rotterdam, Hamburg and Amsterdam have alternative solutions to
diminish the emission output. The port of Rotterdam is already transporting CO2 to the
greenhouses in the area, however European regulation does not stimulate this enough. The
port of Hamburg will use and generate renewable energy. Whilst the port of Amsterdam has
invested in vapour recovery systems and a launder emissions system. These are all
alternative solutions to have a greater cut in the CO2 output.
Lastly the port of Rotterdam and Amsterdam have unique solutions to implement the circular
economy further. The port of Rotterdam wants to have space reserved for carbon capture
and carbon storage facilities. This all for becoming the number one port in the new
17
commodity CO2. The port of Amsterdam has an energy plant which converts waste into
energy. This is a perfect example of implementing the circular economy.
Port profileIn this section, the port profile of each port will be discussed. There are quite a few
differences with regards to the size, main activities, geographical characteristics, ownership
of the land and the legal position of the port. If the circular economy will be completely
implemented, some activities will disappear. The current way of energy producing does not fit
the circular economy. Eventually the fossil fuels will disappear. This can have a huge impact
on a port. Some ports will have to adjust and their main activities will change. Therefore this
should be taken into account when looking to their port profile as well.
Port of RotterdamThe port of Rotterdam has the largest total throughput of all the ports in Hamburg-Le Havre
range. As shown in the graph 1 (appendix C) liquid bulk has the highest share in total
throughput, followed by containers, dry bulk, RoRo and other general cargo. This is mainly
thanks to the maximum draught of 24 meters. The port of Rotterdam is a government
corporation, where the shares are divided between the Dutch government and the
municipality of Rotterdam.
It has a lot of main activities, but mostly focuses on energy (Port of Rotterdam, 2015b). The
current way of producing energy is not compatible with the circular economy, the port of
Rotterdam has oil refineries and coal power plants. The port of Rotterdam is seen as the
energy port of Europe. Therefore it should take a while before these activities will totally
disappear. However they are already transferring to the biobased energy production, which is
a more sustainable way of producing energy (Schultz, 2016).
In the port of Rotterdam are performed the most activities out of the five selected ports. The
port of Rotterdam only has one scrap centre, where scrap is turned into metal again. There is
a scrap terminal in the port, where scrap is analysed, shorted, shredded and combined.
There is one company that offers recycling services, namely Jewomentaal Stainless
Processing. Furthermore most scrap is exported (Port of Rotterdam, Scrap metal export and
transhipment). In the first half of 2015 the modal split was divided in 41.6 % barge, 46.2%
road and 12.2% rail (Port of Rotterdam, 2015e).
18
Port of AntwerpContainers have the highest share of the total throughput in the Port of Antwerp, secondly
liquid bulk, followed by dry bulk, other general cargo and as last RoRo. The port of Antwerp
has less activities than the port of Rotterdam. The extra activities that are performed in
Rotterdam are energy production and ship repair (Port of Antwerp, types of goods). The port
of Antwerp has liquid bulk second place of type of total throughput handled. The port of
Antwerp is mostly active in the petroleum derivatives sector (Port of Antwerp, 2014b). The
port is already attracting extra possibilities to insure their continuation if the petroleum
derivatives sector will diminish. The port of Antwerp has more recycling possibilities than
Rotterdam. It has multiple recycling centres for different types of products.
The port is located near a river and can handle a vessel with a maximum draught of 15.5
meters by high tide. The surface is 12,068 hectares (Port of Antwerp, About the port). This is
somewhat smaller than Rotterdam. The port of Antwerp is a government corporation, where
all the shares are owned by the municipality. It has more employees than the Port of
Rotterdam, namely 1584 (Port of Antwerp, 2015b). The land is owned by the port authority,
which is a unique position (Port of Antwerp, Antwerp as landlord port). The modal split of the
maritime cargo is 48% road, 7% rail, 41% barge and 4% pipe in 2015 (Port of Antwerp,
2015b).
Port of HamburgContainers have the highest share of throughput in the port of Hamburg. Furthermore the
port of Hamburg is active in dry bulk, followed by liquid bulk, other general cargo and RoRo.
This is shown in graph 3 (appendix C). The port of Hamburg is a container port and liquid
bulk and dry bulk activities are a small part of their main activities. Therefore it should be
easier to adapt the circular economy, because less activities will disappear. The port of
Hamburg has similar activities as Rotterdam, however it is a lot less active in the liquid bulk
industry. The port of Hamburg does not have many recycling centres, however it has a scrap
centre for steel and other metals. The location of the port is near the river, and it has a
maximum draught of 15.10 meters by high tide (Port of Hamburg, The Elbe within its tides).
The surface is smaller than Antwerp and Rotterdam. The port is located on 7,200 hectares.
The port of Hamburg has a different legal position, because it is an institution under public
law. This means that it is a state owned company (Port of Hamburg, Hamburg port authority).
It has around 1,810 employees. This is a lot more Rotterdam and Antwerp. Another
interesting figure is the modal split. Hamburg has a modal split of 48% road, 45.3% rail and
12.3% barge. Whist often the percentages of rail and barge are turned around (Port of
Hamburg, 2015d).
19
Port of GhentThe port of Ghent is the smallest port out the five selected ports. Dry bulk has the highest
share of the total throughput over a period of five years. Furthermore the port of Ghent is
used as a hub for liquid bulk, other general cargo and RoRo. The port of Ghent does not
have a lot of incoming containers. Additionally the main activities are a lot smaller and there
is a large assembly factory for cars located in the port area. There are also scrap and
recycling centres (Port of Ghent, 2015b). Dry bulk and liquid bulk can change when switching
to a more sustainable economy. Therefore the Port of Ghent has decided to have a focus on
their biobased economy. The port of Ghent is one of the leaders in biofuels in Europe and
the world. A unique position is the bio cluster located in Ghent and bio based research is
executed in Ghent in order for companies to close the gap between the industrial sector and
the laboratorial experiments (Port of Ghent, 2014a).
The port is located near a river and the draught of a vessel can have a maximum of 12.5
meters. The port of Ghent has a similar size as the port of Amsterdam and it covers a
surface area of 4,667 hectares (Port of Antwerp, Port Area). The port of Ghent is a
government corporation and all the shares are owned by the municipality. It has around 160
employees and the modal split is comparable with the one of Antwerp and Rotterdam. The
modal split exists of 45% road, 9% rail and 46% barge (Port of Ghent, 2015c).
Port of AmsterdamThe port of Amsterdam has not a high share in containers which is similar as the port of
Ghent. Dry bulk has the highest share in the total throughput, but liquid bulk is nearly
overtaking dry bulk. This shift will continue if the circular economy will be implemented
further. Therefore the port of Amsterdam must find a solution to continue as a port. Other
general cargo and RoRo have a relatively low share (Port of Amsterdam, 2014a). The port of
Amsterdam does not have as much activities as the port of Rotterdam. However it has more
scrap and recycling facilities than Rotterdam and Hamburg. The port is located on the bank
of a former bay and the draught of a vessel have a maximum of 13.72 meters. The surface
area is 4,500 hectares, which is a lot smaller than Rotterdam and Antwerp (Port of
Amsterdam, Role). The port is a government corporation and currently the shares are all
owned by the municipality of Amsterdam (Port of Amsterdam, 2013b). It has around 350
employees working and the modal split is the following 31% road, 2% rail, 44% barge and
23% short sea (Port of Amsterdam, 2014a).
The relationship between port profiles and the difference in policyThe most important differences in the policy can be related to specific features of the port
profile that other ports do not possess. There will be looked to the most important differences
20
in the policy and see if these differences can be attributed to the port profiles or other
peculiarities.
The port of RotterdamThe port of Rotterdam does not give much attention to waste collection and recycling. The
port only has financial incentive to stimulate waste collection, but does not provide as much
waste parks as the port of Antwerp and Amsterdam. The port of Rotterdam also has not
made a waste management plan. The port profile of Rotterdam has mainly liquid bulk, of
which primarily crude oil (Port of Rotterdam, 2016a). During the distillation process of crude
oil all the components can be used in various products. Therefore waste is not as common
as with other commodities. The difference regarding not having a waste plan can be
attributed to the port profile. The reuse for materials is simulated by developing business
cases and reserving spots. Their attitude is not as active as Amsterdam and Antwerp, but
also not as passive as Hamburg. This choice cannot be attributed to the port profile, because
this is more a managerial choice and might depend on cultural standards (Tse, Lee,
Vertinsky, & Wehrung, 1988).
The port of Rotterdam does give more attention to the exchange of residual products. They
are investing in new pipelines, which should increase the easiness to exchange products
with each other. If liquid bulk is your main commodity, most of the products are liquid which
can be transported by pipeline. Therefore it is convenient to invest in pipelines for reusing
residual products. This difference can be attributed to the port profile.
Furthermore the port of Rotterdam has a data exchange platform together with the port of
Amsterdam. This could only be implemented because the both ports are large enough to
make this investment profitable. This difference is related to the port profile, because the
investment could only be profitable if both ports were large enough.
The exchange between residual heat and the greenhouses exists only in the Port of
Rotterdam. This can be executed, because the greenhouses are located near the Port. Other
ports did not have this opportunity. This difference is therefore not related with the port
profile. Additionally the port of Rotterdam is the only port that wants to be active in the
commodity CO2. This is mainly because the port is already an energy port and this might be
a new source of energy. Therefore there will be space reserved for carbon capture. This
difference can be attributed to the port profile.
Port of AntwerpThe port of Antwerp does not use a data exchange system for vessels to reduce CO 2. The
investment in such a system is quite enormous. The reason for not investing is not
mentioned and therefore we cannot state that this difference can be attributed to the port
21
profile. Furthermore the port of Antwerp builds pipelines in their chemical cluster for an
exchange of residual materials between companies. The port of Antwerp facilitates the wish
of chemical companies located in the port, therefore this difference can be attributed to the
port profile.
Additionally the port of Antwerp stimulates the reuse of residual materials by acting as a
hotline for complains for waste and giving waste management advice. This is a choice which
cannot directly be attributed to the port profile, because there is no clear relationship. The
port of Antwerp stimulates waste collection actively. They have multiple waste parks and a
waste management plan. This might be due to the fact that the location of port of Antwerp
and Rotterdam are near each other. Therefore both ports need to hold on to their market
share and always look for new opportunities (Fleming & Baird, 1999). The port of Antwerp
probably has decided that recycling is a good option. Therefore is this choice partially a
managerial choice, but also related to the port profile of Antwerp, because has a somewhat
smaller throughput than the port of Rotterdam.
Port of HamburgThe port of Hamburg is the first port to have a floating power plant facility for cruise ships,
whilst other ports do not offer the feature yet. The port of Rotterdam will introduce a similar
facility in 2017 and the port of Amsterdam is investigating possibilities (Port of Rotterdam,
2015f). Hamburg is the first of the five ports to introduce this floating power plant facility and
the rest might follow over the years. It would be logical that ports that have a lot of cruise
ships would make this investment earlier, thus there is a small connection with the port
profile.
The port of Hamburg also uses data exchange systems (DIVA and PortMonitor) to improve
efficiency and reduce emissions. The port of Hamburg has a tide in the Elbe, therefore it is of
importance that PortMonitor indicates the correct times. Otherwise, vessel with a draught
above 15.1 meters can get stuck in the Elbe. This has already happened a few times (Paris
& Wall, 2016). The use of PortMonitor is port profile related, however the choice of DIVA is
not necessary port profile related, because every port has around the same percentage for
usage of road in the modal split. Furthermore the port of Hamburg stimulates the use of
residual materials by being an example. This is a management decision which cannot
directly be attributed to the port profile. Likewise the decision to stimulate waste collection by
being an example cannot be directly attributed.
Port of GhentThe port of Ghent is the smallest port of the five ports. Therefore, it often seems that the port
have not deployed the projects that other port already have. The fact that the port of Ghent
22
does not have a data exchange system for incoming vessels is mainly due to the size of the
port. The port of Ghent is fairly small and general manufacturing is a large part of the
activities, thus it is not very interesting to invest in such a system. They could establish a
data exchange system for vessels in cooperation with other Belgian ports. This choice is
related to the port profile.
The port of Ghent is executing waste steam studies to stimulate the exchange of residual
materials. Already a lot of studies are done by other ports, however Ghent has a large car
manufacturer located on its site, thus it is not able to exactly adapt these studies. This
difference can also be attributed to the port profile. The port of Ghent is currently making a
waste management plan. It is possible that the port of Ghent has made this choice on basted
on other factors. There might be a link with the port profile, but the reasoning of setting up a
waste management plan is not disclosed. Therefore this cannot be determined.
Port of AmsterdamThe port of Amsterdam has a very high share in dry bulk, but over the last five years there is
a downwards trend. Therefore, the port of Amsterdam was looking at a new alternative.
There is chosen for a focus on the bio and circular industry. This has led to draft a waste
management plan. In the port of Amsterdam a lot of recycling companies have settled.
Furthermore the port of Amsterdam tries to stimulate existing companies to close their loop.
This is done by active management. Additionally the port has made a digital platform where
companies can exchange knowledge and waste. All these choice are related to the
downwards trend in their top commodity to insure the port can continue. These differences in
policy are thanks to the port profile.
The port of Amsterdam has an energy plant which converts waste to energy. This indicates
the focus on the circular economy to insure continuation. At last, the port of Amsterdam has
a data exchanges system for incoming vessels together with the port of Rotterdam. This is to
diminish the emissions of vessels. It fits the current mind set of the port of Amsterdam. These
ports are together sizable enough to handle such an investment, therefore this decision is
partly related to the port profile.
23
ConclusionThis study has shown that the policy differences with respect to the circular economy can
sometimes be attributed to the port profile. The port profile had some influence, but not all
decisions are solely made on the basis of the port profile. Sometimes the choices for a
certain type of policy are probably made on cultural background or preferences of managers.
This could be further researched.
There are some policy differences which can be attributed the port profile. The port of
Rotterdam does not support waste collection as much as other ports. They only have
financial incentives. This might come because liquid bulk has a high share of their total
throughput. Liquid bulk does not have a lot of waste and the residual product can be used as
asphalt. Furthermore the port of Rotterdam has a focus on the storage and processing of
CO2. They have forecasted that CO2 will become a new energy source and companies have
24
set up a project to capture carbon and storage it in the sea. They are currently already an
energy port and this would strengthen their position further.
The port of Antwerp has a focus on waste collection. There is always a lot of competition
between the port of Antwerp and Rotterdam, however the port of Rotterdam has become the
premier port of Europe. For strengthen and maintaining the market share of the port of
Antwerp, they have decided to focus on recycling. This is mainly because the port of
Rotterdam is not specialized in this. The port of Antwerp has a comparative advantage in
waste collection, which can lead that some companies prefer Antwerp above Rotterdam.
This difference can be attributed to the port profile.
The port of Hamburg did not have much difference in policy which can be attributed to the
port profile. The only difference that might have a link with port profile is PortMonitor.
PortMonitor is a data exchange system which should lead to a more efficient flow of vessels.
The port of Hamburg is located near the river, the Elbe, where a difference in tide is. To
insure that none of the vessels will get stuck in the Elbe, this system can be used and
increase the flow which should lead to a decrease in emissions.
The port of Ghent is a relatively small port and it has a large car manufacturer located on its
site. Therefore an investment in a data exchange system for incoming vessels will not
decrease a lot of emissions due to the large manufacturing sector. The port of Ghent is
currently executing waste stream studies, because it cannot directly adapt other studies to
their port. This is also due to the large manufacturing sector. These differences are all related
to the port profile.
The port of Amsterdam attached a high importance on implementing the bio and circular
economy. This is all due to the decline of dry bulk, their largest part of the total throughput.
Therefore the port of Amsterdam has set up a waste management plan, active management
on closing loops of existing companies and a platform where companies can exchange
knowledge and waste. To top it all the port of Amsterdam is the only port of the five to have
an energy plant which converts waste to energy. This is all the result of a decline in dry bulk.
To insure the continuation of the port, the port of Amsterdam has implemented the bio and
circular economy in an extensive way.
There are some fundamental differences for the implementation of the circular economy
between ports. Some activities might disappear due to the implementation of the circular
economy. This will influence certain ports more than others. The activities that are likely to
vanish are energy related activities which are based on fossil fuels. Smaller ports with a high
25
dry bulk share will have to anticipate more on the circular economy to ensure their
continuation due to the fall in some activities than containerised ports. Larger ports with
energy production do have to anticipate on the fact that some activities might disappear,
however the chances are higher that they will disappear with smaller ports.
The port of Amsterdam has to implement the circular economy differently than the port of
Hamburg, because the port of Amsterdam has to create new activities to cover up for the
decline in the energy related activities. The port of Amsterdam has come up with recycling
incentives, whilst the port of Hamburg which has a container focus, is in less need to
implement the circular economy, because their will vanish a lot less activities. The port of
Rotterdam also has a focus on energy production, but tries to make its energy production
more sustainable by using biochemical solutions or capturing CO2. Furthermore, the port of
Rotterdam is a lot bigger than the port of Amsterdam. This feature of the port ensures the
production of energy on a fossil fuel basis for a longer period of time. The port of Antwerp is
containerized port, however it also has a large petrochemical cluster. Recycling activities
might substitute the fall in the petrochemical cluster, which can happen in the future. The port
of Ghent also has a high share in dry bulk, however they have decided not to focus on the
circular economy, but to ensure their continuation with the biobased economy.
Limitations and recommendationsThis research has a few limitations. The first one is that not every port has the same type of
reports publically available. Every port has its own style of reporting and there is not a
standard framework for how to write down their policy. Furthermore there were multiple
documents which described their policies. It has been tried to include all documents which
have policy regarding the circular economy stated. However, it was not always clear in which
documents this was stated. Thus there has mainly been looked at policy documents which
have plans for the future and environmental reports. Additionally, the port of Ghent only has
its report of 2013 available. In this report was stated that in 2015 an update will be published,
however this report was not publically available yet. This can lead to a skewed result.
The second limitation is the definition of policy regarding the circular economy. In the reports
is not stated that a certain type of policy is to implement the circular economy. The
terminology of the three R’s: reduce, reuse and recycle are often used, thus this has been
used to find the policy regarding the circular economy. Unfortunately, this is a simplification
of the definition of the circular economy. This could mean that certain policies have not been
noticed.
For further research, similar research can be executed in other ports that are located near
each other, for example China of North-America. This is to investigate that this difference
26
does not only exists within Europe. Another option is that there will not be only desk
research, but also a survey for ports to complete. Hopefully, this will result in accurate and up
to date policies regarding the circular economy. However, a clear definition of the circular
economy should be defined, otherwise ports will not fill in all their policies concerning the
circular economy.
BibliographyAAPA. (2014). Port Industry Statistics. Retrieved from American Association of Port