1 / 39

Sustainability challenges in shipping

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.

forbes
Télécharger la présentation

Sustainability challenges in shipping

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  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. LCA-methodologyISO 14040-48 • 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.

  7. The use of LCA in two projects: • ”Life Cycle Evaluation of shiptransportation - Development of methodology and testing” • “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 shiptransportation - 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:

  10. Flow chartHull materials

  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 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.

  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

  18. 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 Inventory results (per ton fish)

  19. Normalised inventory results

  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 According to the EST-project

  22. Case 2: Passenger transportation Svolvær

  23. Interpretation According to political goals/priorities According to the EPS-method

  24. Interpretation according to recommendations in the EST-project

  25. The Eco-efficiency Concept Eco-efficiency = product or service value environmentalinfluence Eco-efficiency indicator = economic performance indicator environmental performance indicator

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. ”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

  29. THE GRI-INDICATOR FRAME-WORK

  30. 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

  31. 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?

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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 ????.

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. Thank you for your attentionMy e-mail adress: Annik.Fet@iot.ntnu.no

More Related