Table 9 SWOT Analysis for European Maritime Industrial Ports
Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
European ports' commitment to environmental protection and sustainable development evidenced by the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which highlight the potential CBMs to apply Experience of European ports in CE development and a few CBMs implementation Port efforts to fulfill the requirements for being environmentally certified (ISO 14001, PERS, and EMAS) and to publish their environmental and sustainable reports Existence of environmental policy in place (96% of ports) Port waste and energy circular activities interests Rise in providing of OPS and LNG bunkering, and interests in Green hydrogen and CCUS. In 2020 one third of ports made LNG bunkering available Port Reception Facilities Directive for ships engaged in sustainable waste management onboard Provision of rewards for vessels that hold an environmental certification Implementation of 4IR technologies | Linear approach as an embedded protocol in ports and industries The relatively short life cycle of energy projects due to constant innovation creates uncertainty for energy projects Reduction the environmental training program for port employees The small decrease in the provision of differentiated Fees for “green” vessels as per the tax incentives (around 57% of ports provide environmentally differentiated fees) Port diversity with challenges for standardization of measurements and practices Investment costs due to the inclusion of environmental measures in charging schemes Non-harmonized regulations at port areas Lacking suppliers and partners offering sustainable solutions and enhanced cooperation Lack of work with and alongside the EMF |
Opportunities | Threats |
|---|---|
Availability of Environmental Management Indicators (EMI) set by the ESPO Port network organizations such as EcoPort, ESPO, IAPH, and Loop Port Partnerships and constant dialogue between port stakeholders Innovative business models rise with circularity UNSDGs and targets, Paris Agreement, IMO target, and the European Green Deal, with the fit for 55 package European Commission circular action plan adopted in 2020 MARPOL Annexes I,II, IV, and V ratified by European nations Availability of disruptive technologies (Digital, Physical and Biological) that help port implementation in CE Development of entire value chains for plastic, textiles, rubber, biomass, and chemicals for new CBMs System thinking approach (integration) to tackle sustainability and circular economy The availability of Circulytics and Circular transition Indicators (CTI) to support the organization’s transition toward the CE | Lack of societal pressure GDP as a measure of the productivity and economic development of countries Lack of harmonized legislation High costs of circular development initiatives in renewable energy, financial mechanisms and uncertainty in the technology life cycle High-energy consumption of green hydrogen Different CBMs not sufficiently assessed The diversity of the European port and maritime sector translates into difficulty of replicating best practices in other ports Funding and financing constraints for these initiatives, there is no time and no money to waste Inadequate stimulation of Education, awareness, and training of the workforce No universally accepted system to determine the environmental impacts in port Lack of Integration (system thinking) Lack of standardized policies for clean energy The Policy framework is insufficient for emissions reduction target of a net 55% of the fit for 55 pack |