Comparative assessment of two circularity indicators for the case of reusable versus single-use secondary packages for fresh foods in Spain.

Sustainable packaging is a crucial focus in the context of circular economy efforts. This study evaluates the circularity of two secondary packaging systems used in Spanish fresh food produces: Reusable Plastic Crates and Single-use Cardboard Boxes. A Mass Flow Analysis was performed to assess the material flows in the production and use phases of both systems and two circular indicators were applied: the Material Circularity Indicator and Product Circular Indicator. While most previous studies for single-use packaging use these indicators at the product level, this study applies a system approach since the Reusable Plastic Crates can be reused 100 times. The functional unit was defined as the distribution of 1000 tonnes of fresh products, resulting in the distribution of 6,666,700 packages with 15 kg of products. The Material Circularity Indicator and Product Circular Indicator results show that Reusable Plastic Crates are more circular than Single-use Cardboard Boxes. The Product Circular Indicator provides a more comprehensive assessment of circularity by considering multiple life cycle stages, efficiency, and unrecoverable waste, resulting in a difference in circularity evaluations. The indicators used have limitations as they do not consider the resource stock. Further research is needed to explore this aspect.

Insights on the environmental management system of the European port sector.

This research focusses on assessing the environmental performance of European Ports based on a wide representation of EcoPorts members. The data is extracted from the Self-Diagnosis Method (SDM), a concise checklist against which port managers can self-assess the environmental management of their port in relation to the performance of the EcoPorts membership. A total number of 97 ports from 18 different European Maritime States contributed to this evaluation. They have answered questions related to the main components of internationally recognized Environmental Management System (EMS) standards. Similar periodic assessments have been carried out since 2013, allowing for the identification of benchmark performance. The geographical representation and characteristics of the participating ports are given along with the perceived ranking of priority environmental issues based on regular reviews. Air quality has been the top environmental priority for many years, followed by climate change, which has risen rapidly to the second position. Most of the ports have an environmental policy in place (96%) and a compilation of an inventory of significant environmental aspects (92%). Transparency is also very important to ports, with 91% of ports communicating their environmental policy to stakeholders, and 86% of ports making it publicly available on their website. Around 80% of ports have set up an environmental monitoring program, with port waste being the most monitored issue. With regard to services to shipping, more than half of the responding ports are offering on shore power supply (OPS), and one third of them have made LNG bunkering available. In parallel, an increasing number of ports compared with previous exercises (57%) provide differentiated dues for ships that go beyond regulatory standards, with air emissions, waste and climate change being the main target of these discounts. In general, trends over the years have shown a clear improvement of the environmental port performance.

Review of Initiatives and Methodologies to Reduce CO2 Emissions and Climate Change Effects in Ports.

Ports are important infrastructures for economic growth and development. Among the most significant environmental aspects of ports that contribute to the issue of climate change are those due to carbon dioxide emissions generated by port activities. Given the importance of this topic, this paper gathers initiatives and methodologies that have been undertaken to calculate and reduce CO2 emissions and climate change effects in ports. After studying these methodologies, their strengths and opportunities for further enhancement have been analyzed. The results show that, in recent years, several ports have started to calculate their carbon footprint and report it. However, in some of the cases, not all the sources of GHG gases that are occurring actually in ports are taken into account, such as emissions from waste treatment operations and employees' commuting. On other occasions, scopes are not defined following standard guidelines. Furthermore, each authority or operator uses its own method to calculate CO2 emissions, which makes the comparison of results difficult. For these reasons, this paper suggests the need for creating a standardized tool to calculate carbon footprint in ports, which will make it possible to establish a benchmark and a potential comparison of results among ports.

Calculating the Carbon Footprint in ports by using a standardized tool.

One of the significant environmental threats in ports in recent years are carbon dioxide emissions generated by different activities carried out in these areas, which lead to Climate Change. In the maritime industry, this topic is getting more critical every day. The main cause of Climate Change is the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). The total amount of GHG that are emitted both directly and indirectly by an activity are calculated by the following indicator: the Carbon Footprint. The review of different case studies shows while in recent years many ports calculate their Carbon Footprint and report it, each port uses its own method and there is not any unified and complete method to calculate Carbon Footprint. This makes comparing results among different ports a difficult task and proves the need for such a method. Therefore, it has been developed a standardized tool to calculate GHG emissions in ports. The tool has been developed by using Excel and Visual Basic software and it is based on the WPCI (World Ports Climate Initiative) and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) guidelines and the GHG Protocol. Such tool is specifically designed so that port authorities can calculate their Carbon Footprint and report it accordingly. The tool has different steps taking into account the three scopes of emissions defined by the WPCI guideline for ports. Once developed, it was validated by a set of selected ports and environmental experts. The final aim is to distribute this tool to all ports and make it freely available.