Transcript Professional Review Interview IMarEST, 28.01.04

Sustainability challenges in shipping
Annik Magerholm Fet
Professor, 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
1
Norwegian
universities
2
NTNU –
Trondheim
3
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
4
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“
5
Cleaner
Production at
shipyards
1994
Waste
minimization,
shipyards
System
Bottom hull
analyzis and
cleaning water
life cycle
treatment
approach
Environmental management in a
life cycle perspective,
methodlogical development for
shipbuilding and shipping:
LCA and
LCC
EPIs and
EPE
High pressure
water blasting
EMS and
EMAS
Enclosed
systems for
sandblasting
Manual for CP
and
environmental
management at
shipyards
1998
Indicators and
environemntal
reporting in ship
transport
2001
2004
Indicators and
environemntal reporting
at shipyards
Industrial ecology and
eco-efficiency
sustainability reporting
6
LCA-methodology
ISO 14040-48
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
7
weighted against each other.
The use of LCA in two projects:
1. ”Life Cycle Evaluation of ship
transportation - 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.
8
”Life Cycle Evaluation of ship
transportation - Development of
methodology and testing”
Goal: To demonstrate that the LCA-method is
applicable for environmental life cycle evaluation for
ships
Case study: M/V Color Festival
9
Studied system:
System
COLOR FESTIVAL
Sub-systems
1. Ship
general
System
elements
2. Hull
3. Equip.
for cargo
4. Ship
equip.
5. Equip.
for crew
and
passengers
6. Machinery
main
components
20-26 Hull
materials
60. Diesel
engines
27. Material
protection, external
63. Propellers
28. Material
protection, internal
7. Systems
for machinery
main
components
8. Ship
common
systems
64 Boilers
10
Flow
chart
Hull
materials
steel
Diesel
Electricity
Transport of steel
Emissions
Cutting of steel shears
Material
loss
Diesel
Sand
Sandblasting
Electricity
Welding
Construction
Emissions
Operation
Energy
Raw material
Same processes
as for building
phase
Diesel
Transport ship to
demolition yard
Emissions
Cutting steel
shears
Scrap
Steel for recycling
Electricity
Emissions
Maintenance
Scrapping
11
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.
12
The ship’s life cycle phases’
contribution to the environmental
impact categories
13
Example:
Comparing two antifouling
systems
New 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.
14
Characterisation results for
comparison of two systems
15
Conclusions from the LCAproject:
• 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.
16
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.
17
Case 3:
Transport of
frozen fish
Chain B
Chain A
Chain B
Road transport
Chain A
Waterborne transport
Road transport
Waterborne transport
Termo Trailer HFR/Norfrig
Harbours in Oslo and Kiel
Terminal in Ijmuiden
Harbours in Ålesund,
Måløy and Ijmuiden
Road Ålesund - Oslo, Kiel - Paris
M/V Kronprins Harald
(or M/V Prinsesse Ragnhild)
Termo Trailer HFR/Norfrig
RoRo-ship
M/V Nordjarl
Road Ijmuiden - Paris
18
Inventory results (per ton fish)
Impact category
Compound
Climate change
CO2
84 kg
138 kg
1
N2O
0,24 g
0,71 g
320
CH4
1,5 g
4,4 g
25
SO2
938 g
867 g
1,00
NOX
1286 g
1802 g
0,70
NH3
0,022 g
0,064 g
1,88
(no data)
(no data)
160
0,10 g
0,034
250
Acidification
Toxic contam.
Pb (to air)
TBT
Chain A
Chain B
Cu
Local air pollut.
particles
Photo oxid. form.
NMVOC
Noise
Eutrophication
Charact.
2
Contr.
Normalisat.
EP(j)
55 598 000
000
EP(j)
237 448 000
EP(j)
8 453 000
24 g
70 g
1
344 700 000
36,6 g
106 g
1
24 800 000
Area >55dBA
10,4 m2
94 m2
1
36 146 088
884
NH3
0,022 g
0,064 g
3,64
NOX
1286 g
1802 g
1,35
Energy consump.
MJ
930 MJ
1812 MJ
1
813 PJ
Land use
Area (m2)
0,23 m2
0,66 m2
1
485 719 000
EP(j)
671 081 500
19
Normalised inventory results
0,00000001
0,000000009
0,000000008
Relative contribution
0,000000007
0,000000006
Transport chain A
0,000000005
Transport chain B
0,000000004
0,000000003
0,000000002
0,000000001
0
Climate change
Acidification
Toxic
contamination
Photo oxidant
formation
Local air
pollution (dust)
Impact categories
Noise
Eutrophication
Energy
consumption
Land use
20
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)
21
Weighted results, case 3:
According to political
goals
Land use
Energy consumption
Eutrophication
Noise
Dust
Photo oxidant formation
Acidification
Climate change
Transport chain A
Land use
Noise
Particulates
VOC
NOX
CO2
Transport chain A
Transport chain B
According to the ESTproject
Transport chain B
22
Svolvæ
r
Case 2:
Passenger
transportation
23
Interpretation
Land use
Energy consumption
Eutrophication
Noise
Dust
According to
political
goals/priorities
Photo oxidant formation
Acidification
Climate change
HSLC chain
Aircraft+taxi chain
Car+ferry chain
50
According to the
EPS-method
45
NOx
40
ELU/passenger
35
30
Fuel
25
20
15
NOx
10
Fuel
Fuel
CO2
5
CO2
CO2
HSLC chain
Aircraft+taxi chain
0
Car+ferry chain
24
Interpretation according to
recommendations in the ESTproject
Land use
Noise
Particula
te
VOC
NOX
CO2
HSLC chain
Aircraft+taxi chain
Car+ferry chain
25
26
The Eco-efficiency Concept
Eco-efficiency = product or service value
environmental influence
Eco-efficiency indicator = economic performance indicator
environmental performance indicator
27
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.
28
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.
29
”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
30
THE GRIINDICATOR
FRAMEWORK
31
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
32
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?
33
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.
34
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.
35
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 ????.
36
OTHER CURRENT WORK
Funded 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 – 31.12.05
Program 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
37
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
38
Thank you for your attention
My e-mail adress: [email protected]
39