Findings and Discussion
3.1. The extent of GHG emissions from the Port of Mombasa
According to literature, Kenya contributes less than 1% of total global greenhouse gas emissions (NEMA, 2017). Although these emissions are currently at low levels, studies that the Port of Mombasa generates relatively high GHG amounts when compared with major world-class ports (The Cornell Group, 2014). The following discussion is based on qualitative and quantitative data from various reports by stakeholders to put into context and evaluate GHG emissions at the Kenyan Coast. These include the Maritime Technology Cooperation Centre (MTCC) Africa, the Kenya Ports Authority, the National Environmental Management Authority (Kenya), among others. Data from other feasibility studies, trends, and reports, and other literary sources has been discussed to understand the extent and effect of GHG emissions in the Port of Mombasa.
Most of the air polluting emissions in Kenya are agricultural emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. They account for around 67% of total national emissions. The energy and the transport sector follow in the volume of emissions at 16% and 10% respectively. Together with road and rain, marine transport, therefore, contributes 10% of pollution in the country. The total energy emissions driven mainly by the transport sector among others like electricity and heat production and fuel combustion increased by 77% between 1990 and 2013. Waste and industrial processes also emit small amounts of GHG. In Mombasa, with the growing shipping traffic, increased port activities, and other industrial development plans underway, the potential of high amounts of air pollution increases. Kenya’s Vision 2030 development blueprint, especially the plans on industrialization, may see the increase in greenhouse gas emission if proper mitigation plans are not put in place (NEMA, 2017).
Figure 1: Kenya’s GHG emissions by Sector and Percent of total emissions 2013. The area marked with the orange colour in the energy bar graph represents the transport sector.
3.2 GHG sources and amounts in Mombasa
There are various sources of GHG at the port. A GHG inventory was carried out according to the standards of the international GHG Protocol for the Port of Mombasa. The study covered various scopes of GHG emissions. For instance, the Kenya Ports Authority direct GHG contributing sources include their buildings and offices, their vehicles, stationary generators, and equipment. GHG from these sources made 5% of the inventory. Diesel consumed mainly by generators and cranes were a primary contributor. 1% of inventory came from the KPA buildings’ electricity needs, such as air conditioning, lighting, and crater cranes. Port tenants such as Magadi Soda Company, ships within port vicinity and operating boundary, stationary sources like cargo-handling equipment, and vehicles (trains, trucks, mobile sources) within port accounted for 40% of inventory. Most of these ships use higher sulphur bunker fuels such as heavy fuel oil. Fuel inefficient, diesel-powered trucks manoeuvring within port ferrying containers emit fumes while moving and queuing. These sources significantly contribute to greenhouse gases. The remaining 54% was due to road and rail transport emissions as they ferry goods to or from the port. In 2013, the KPA operations total GHG inventory carbon footprint came to an estimate of 260,508 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (The Cornell Group, 2014).
3.2.1. Port functional capacity and traffic increases the potential of GHG emission
Various port activities, the ships docking, and calling, the high traffic, energy requirement, and consumption make a contribution to pollution and GHG emissions significantly high. According to research, emissions in one busy port could approximately match those from 500,000 vehicles (The Cornell Group, 2014). To contextualize the extent of the emissions, Mombasa handles a shipping volume of close to 2,000 vessels annually to and from major harbours globally (NEMA, 2017). These ships have a turnaround time of around three days and about 11 hours net waiting time before berth (Mombasa Community Charter, 2017). Each commercial ship uses about 1.5 – 3.5 tons of fuel on average per day while at the port. The container throughput in 2015 was more than 1 million Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs), while the cargo throughput in 2016 was about 27.36 million tonnes. These volumes continue to rise annually (KPA, 2017).
With developments like construction and expansion of container terminals, the capacity of the port will increases. For instance, upon the completion of all phases of the second container terminal, the expected additional capacity is more than TEUs 1,600,000 (Banks, Ruijs, & Mwai, 2017). Passenger and cruise ship calls are also on the rise. 2015 reports indicate that the number of calls by cruise ships rose, and so did the number of passengers, from 1,126 in 2014 to 5,072 in 2015 (Banks, Ruijs, & Mwai, 2017). Other projects, such as a modern oil terminal and a crude oil handling facility, are also underway.
Different kinds of ships arrive at the port with cargo ships, making the bulk of them. With these volumes, ship types, and on-going and planned developments, GHG amounts are significant and set to increase if the right measures are not taken. The following data represents the port’s functional capacity in terms of ship traffic, docking, and calling.
Figure 2: Recent port traffic statistics- arrival by type Cargo-48.67, special craft- 24.94, unspecified-21.07, tanker-3.39, fishing-1.94 (MarineTraffic, 2019)
Figure 3: Ships in the Port of Mombasa 2015 (Banks, Ruijs, & Mwai, 2017)
The cargo ships and other vessels that enter, dock, and leave the port burn a lot of high sulphur content, heavy bunker fuel. With the time they spend at the port and the traffic volume at the Kilindini channel, the result is large amounts of GHG emissions. These ships produce sulphur oxide. According to conclusions from research by Barasa et al., Sulphur dioxide levels at some sites along the Mombasa coastal strip and Nairobi had exceeded the WHO guideline threshold (Barasa, Wandiga, & Lalah, 2007). The other vehicles, like the trucks operating within the port, which use diesel, also contribute to the GHGs. Around 40% of total carbon emissions at the port are due to these two sources only. Around 60% is from other sources such as diesel generator sets, transit trucks ferrying goods to and from Mombasa, and rubber tyred gantry(RTG) cranes that move containers (Banks, Ruijs, & Mwai, 2017).
3.2.2. Energy consumption and power sources increase the potential of GHG emissions
Power consumption is related to greenhouse gas emissions. The port has high energy requirements. Its primary sources are electricity from the national grid and automotive diesel, which is the main backup source when grid power fails. Machines like conveyor belts, generators, cranes (especially container lift cranes), and other electricity-driven and diesel-powered equipment consume much energy. Vehicles manoeuvring within the port and docked ships also contribute to the energy needs. Storage, warehouse facilities, buildings, offices, and the yard also require lighting needs and other fuel consuming functions.
Despite all these requirements, the port only relies on the two primary sources (the national grid – Kenya Power and Lighting Company and diesel generators). There are 17 distribution substations with and 22 standby power generators. As of 2015, the power peak demand was between 3.5 – 5 mega volt-amperes (MVA) with a power consumption increase of 9% per year. Every year the port consumes about 22gigawatt hours, and this will continue to increase due to the growing cargo traffic. Such high power consumption from these sources results in negative social and environmental impacts such as high carbon and GHG emissions, respiratory diseases, and noise (Banks, Ruijs, & Mwai, 2017; Kidere, 2017). From the port, carbon (IV) oxide is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The primary source of emissions is from diesel-powered standby generators and equipment.
3.3 The local effect of air pollution and GHG gas emissions in the Port of Mombasa and its environs
Having understood the extent and sources of pollution, it is clear that the negative consequences on the environment, people living along the shoreline, and the economy are inevitable. Generally, the global effects mentioned, including global warming and climate change, rising sea level, extreme events, health, economic, and biodiversity effects still affect Kenya. On a local scale, levels of methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide, which are the main GHGs from the Port of Mombasa and related activities are on the rise. They result in global warming and significant climate change. Africa is particularly vulnerable to global warming, and climate change adversely affects Kenya.
According to a linear trend calculation, the combined ocean and land surface temperature average showed an increase of about 0.85 °C between 1880 and 2012. Due to such changes, Kenya now experiences very short drought cycles. Between 2007 and 2014, records show that the country experienced an annual drought (NEMA, 2017). These conditions continue to persist. Besides extreme highs of temperature, the country experiences erratic rainfall and increased intensity in drought. The drought of 2008–2011, for instance, resulted in losses and damage amounting to 12.1 billion dollars (USAID, 2018). At the beginning of 2019, the number of food-insecure people in the country more than doubled (reliefweb, 2019).
Global warming and high temperatures on the ocean surface cause thermal stress. This stress consequently destroys biodiversity and habitats, causes physical alteration, and damages marine ecosystem goods and services (NEMA, 2017). Among the affected natural resources include coral reef, coastal forest, mangrove forests, among others. These resources contribute significantly to the GDP through tourism. In 2016, for instance, the coral reefs in the Western Indian Ocean (including the Kenyan coastline) experienced the 3rd global bleaching effect (Obura et al., 2017). Bleaching is brought about by heat stress and floods. Aside from warming, these natural resources are cleared for infrastructural development like the LAPSSET project (involving expansion of road, rail, port, and pipeline) and settlement (NEMA, 2017). These developments, including the proposed port expansion and building of the Lamu Port, risk increasing the amount of GHG and subsequent global warming. The result is a vicious cycle set to eliminate sustainability.
Kenya economically relies heavily on tourism and agriculture and is the East and Central Africa economic hub. The entire region stands to experience a significant economic loss due to global warming. Mombasa is a crucial link to both these economic activities. Agriculture relies on rainfall, which becomes erratic due to global warming and climate change. In recent years rains fail to come when expected, thus reducing food production.
On the other hand, rainfall in extremes leading to flooding has become common. The rising of the sea level is a significant threat to the beaches, plains, lowlands, islands, and wetlands of the Kenyan coast. Close to 20% of the coastline faces the risk of deluge if the sea level rises by 30 cm only. The result is severe economic losses from both agriculture and tourism, displacement, and famine. In the next decade, according to model estimates, climate change and extreme weather will result in annual GDP losses of around 2.6% (USAID, 2018).
Greenhouse gases jeopardize the health of the locals. Increasing temperature leading to heat stress is rampant, especially in cities like Mombasa. The warm weather, coupled with the urban heat island effect in such places, aggravates the stress (USAID, 2018). The risk of deaths from starvation and malnutrition is on the upsurge due to food shortages. The quality of ambient air has reduced significantly. There are now more cases of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) and Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) that there were before. By 2012 the upper respiratory tract infections disease burden was at 31.1% (Wahungu, 2014). The respiratory tract infections are also quoted as among the most common ailments in Mombasa County. They cumulatively account for 4.1% of these diseases with URTI 0.7% and LRTIs at 3.3% (County Government of Mombasa, 2018). Drought and floods also affect water availability and quality. Water rationing is prevalent in Mombasa and waterborne diseases like diarrhoea, cholera, and typhoid are becoming a menace. Destruction of property, displacement, and drowning also come as a result (USAID, 2018).
3.4 Dealing with GHG emissions in Kenya and comparison with other places
Since GHG emission is a grave issue, there are pollution control systems and environmental standards and regulations put in place to deal with it. The climate change act of 2016 guides and mandates them. There has been some success with such systems. Others are underway, but a good number are yet to be implemented. There are also various suggestions and recommendations. The following section will go through the ways through which Kenya deals with GHG emissions compared to ways from elsewhere.
3.4.1 Administration and policy-based solutions
Every five years, the government, through the National Climate Change Council, establishes a National Climate Change Action Plan. It is Kenya’s national mechanism to address climate change. The first one was the 2013-2017 plan, and currently, the 2018-2022 plan is in play. In 2016, Kenya submitted its National Determined Contributions and ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change, thus becoming part of the global effort to address the issue. Before then, in 2005, the country also ratified the Kyoto Protocol on GHG reduction. One of the country’s intentions is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 30% the year by 2030 relative to the business as usual baseline (143 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – MtCO2 e) (Government of Kenya, 2018).
Some of the actions that the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) put in place directly addressed GHG emissions, including the adoption and expansion of renewable energy sources and technologies that support clean energy. Others were to achieve better GHG measurements, to increase tree and forest cover to provide a carbon sink to ensure more carbon absorption, and to embrace low carbon transport (USAID, 2017). The 2013-2017 NCCAP achieved some progress in GHG emission reduction, such as increased electricity generation from renewable sources and the Standard Gauge Railway on the adoption of low carbon transport.
Kenya’s National Environmental Management Authority, guided by the Kyoto Protocol, also engages in the Clean Development Mechanism projects (emission reduction projects for sustainable development) (Government of Kenya, 2018). There is also a specific act that ensures the protection of the environment in every development project known as the EMCA or Environmental Management and Coordination Act CAP 187. It ensures minimal GHG emissions during the development phases. Other efforts to reduce GHG include engagement with the United Nations Framework on Climate Change and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and the REDD+ strategy (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) and the setting up of a GHG inventory unit (Government of Kenya, 2016).
In the maritime sector, Kenya is an International Maritime Organization member state. Local and international shipping in and to Kenya, therefore, has to comply with IMO sanctions. For instance, IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI regulates pollutants like sulphur and nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds, among others produced by ships. The organization also put in place a total annual GHG emission reduction strategy in 2018. It aims to lower ship air emissions by 50% or more by the year 2050 compared to 2008. These international policies continue to mitigate GHG emissions in the country. The transport sector also has the Kenya National Aviation Action Plan for International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Mitigation plan for International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (2017) in place (Government of Kenya, 2018).
In other countries, there are also similar bodies responsible for GHG emission control. Some bodies are sector-specific. There are international organizations that do the same like various United Nations agencies (UNEP, WMO), the Green Climate Fund, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others. The IMO is in charge of the maritime sector. These organizations come up with regulations and ways to reduce and mitigate GHG emissions. They are responsible for their enforcement. The UN, for instance, came up with the Kyoto Protocol (1997 and enforced in 2005) to reduce GHG emissions, especially in industrialized nations. Among the provisions is Annex 1, which moderates the emissions from the ship and air transport over which International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) are responsible (Cullinane & Cullinane, 2019).
3.4.2 Mitigation practices
It is the duty of the Kenya Ports Authority and the Kenya Maritime Authority to implement both local and international strategies relating to GHG emissions, such as those within the NCCAP and the IMO. Their functions include maintaining data on marine pollution incidents (KMA) and ships that call on the Port of Mombasa (KPA). The Kenya Ports Authority has also initiated a Green Port Strategy. These bodies, together with the National Environmental Management Authority and other organizations and stakeholders, are the custodians of the following mitigation practices.
3.4.2.1 Cold ironing
One specific way to reduce GHG emissions from the ship that dock in Mombasa is Cold Ironing (CI). This technology involves the use of shore power by docked ships. One of the ways through which ships calling at a port contribute to GHG emission is through diesel-powered generators that provide for their energy. The stacks emit smoke containing a lot of GHG and air pollutants, including carbon dioxide, sulphur oxides (SOx) nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NOx), and particulate matter (PM), all of which have harmful health and environmental effects (The Cornell Group, 2014). Power coming from the port or shore through cold ironing, however, would significantly reduce ship GHG emissions. The ship turns off the on-board ship power and connects to the power grid serving the port via the cold ironing facilities (Banks, Ruijs, & Mwai, 2017).
Cold ironing or grid power is more efficient than ship-generated power. These facilities reduce noise and almost 90% particulate matter, sulphur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. However, the implementation of the system has to be flexible enough to fit various ships, considering that most of them are not equipped for the connection. Ship manufacturers have and should continue to consider such matters (Banks, Ruijs, & Mwai, 2017). The number of ships able to plug into cold ironing facilities and shore power supply is increasing.
Though there is no legal framework on the implementation of cold ironing, the fact that Kenya is a member of the World Ports Climate Initiative that commits to reducing GHG gives it a basis. The national grid, however, needs to be stable. KPA found it erratic in the provision of shore power for their harbour craft. Another option to consider is an alternative stable power source. Various ports that have adopted cold ironing include the state of California, where it has been compulsory since 2014 (The Cornell Group, 2014).
3.4.2.2 Handling Particulate Matter
Among the ways the KPA reduces particulate matter emissions is putting a speed limit on ships within the port’s vicinity. It is a requirement that employees wear the necessary protective gear to moderate possible health effects. KPA provides this gear and is responsible for monitoring and enforcement of regulations. An important recommendation is planting trees to improve the carbon sink, create dust screens, and for aesthetic purposes. Other recommendations include using dust-free equipment, vacuum suctions, enclosed conveyors, and watering systems to control particulate matter and dust levels. Generators at the port and incoming or outgoing trucks also emit particulate matter, primarily due to poor maintenance. Besides government inspection, KPA should also carry out vehicle inspection and minimize generator operation (The Cornell Group, 2014).
In Australia, Queensland, ports use water sprays during the dry season, since dust is in high amounts. In the same country in New South Wales, they have a tree border to act as a dust screen around where dust is generated. In the Rotterdam in the Netherlands, they have cargo handling codes and use suction filters, covering materials in storage under latex to reduce particulate matter generation. They also take regulation enforcement and monitoring very seriously through updated dust emission data and regular compliance checks (The Cornell Group, 2014).
3.4.2.2 Energy source related solutions at the port
For Mombasa port, a study by Royal HaskoningDVH suggested solutions like improving power supply and consumption based on the equipment, the substations, and the external network. The study recommends various operational and technical measures to improve crane performance and power systems. For instance, manufacturers should improve internal crane operations. Other suggestions include more substations to supply the high energy needs of the port. Servicing of generators, berth rehabilitation, and the use of clean sources of energy for the port needs are also essential. It is important to consider shore power for docking ships like the cold ironing facilities explained above and use renewable energy. Otherwise auxiliary power for ships at berth like diesel powered generators should be eliminated or kept to a minimum (Banks, Ruijs, & Mwai, 2017).
A solar power generation plant would, therefore, be a good idea. Kenya has a high potential for solar power especially Mombasa which gets solar irradiation adequate enough to generate electricity. The coastal town gets around 2200kWh per square meter annually. Germany is a global leader in the generation of solar power and it only receives half the amount of irradiation Mombasa does. Kenya would benefit significantly if it were to optimally harness the energy of the sun for electricity. For the maritime industry among others, it would result in significant greenhouse gas emission reduction. Using solar-powered cranes and generators instead of those that run on diesel is another practical solution (Banks, Ruijs , & Mwai, 2017).
Another alternative energy source is wind generated electricity. Constructing wind turbines at the port or its environs could generate clean energy for needs such as lighting. However, the wind speed in the area (5.5m/sec) is not sufficient optimal power generation which requires at least twice or thrice as much speed as is present. Construction and operation of the turbines would therefore not be economically feasible. Hydrogen gas or liquefied natural gas are suitable replacements for diesel where convenient. LNG considerably decreases the levels of CO2, particulate matter and NOx. Manufacturers and engineers continue to carry out engine conversion and adaptation to make them LNG compatible. Plans are also underway to build LNG facilities in Mombasa. Hydrogen gas (H2) as an alternative to diesel can be used in vehicles and other mobile equipment. However the significant limiting factor in Kenya is its availability and the absence of fuel stations (Banks, Ruijs , & Mwai, 2017).
3.4.2.2 Ship emission reduction solutions
Ships need to reduce their GHG emissions. One way they can do so by cleaner fuel as opposed to the high sulphur heavy fuel oil. Harmful gases like sulphur and nitrogen oxides come from the funnel exhaust of such ships. The Marine Pollution Convention, Annex VI regulates these gases. The IMO has the responsibility to enforce these controls. Stringent controls with proper enforcement must be put in place at every port to put pressure on emission reduction. Kenya’s marine transport, which is under the IMO and consents to MARPOL, has to reduce these emissions, not just for compliance sake, but for the sake of human and environmental health (The Cornell Group, 2014).
Once rigorous regulations are in place, ships either have to opt for other fuels like LNG or low sulphur or use exhaust gas cleaning systems with bunker fuels. Manufacturers are also using engine technological solutions to ensure emission reduction. Ships will still rely heavily on residual fuel oil (bunker fuel) as low sulphur fuels are expensive and may have compatibility issues with some ships. Engine innovations and exhaust treatment are the most viable options for now.
Good seamanship is crucial for GHG emission reduction. Ship owning individuals and companies have to adhere to proper vessel maintenance. In some areas like the North American coasts, the authorities have put in place Emission Control Areas where all marine vessels must meet the given SOx/NOx limits. The ship-owners take it upon themselves to ensure that they are within the regulation boundary, or they are not allowed to dock. The Kenya Ports Authority also monitors and regulates the presence of cargo, vehicles, marine vessels and people at the Port. It has the mandate to allow or deny access to the port (Banks, Ruijs , & Mwai, 2017). Therefore if any ship is in breach of regulations, KPA can prohibit its presence. The organization should use these powers to limit the old ships that emit too much GHG from docking at Kilindini.
Practicing exhaust treatment is crucial towards compliance. It is also the popular option as it is the cheapest. An alternative way is the use of low sulphur or liquefied natural gas fuel. It is recommended that the KPA and maritime industry in Kenya practice employ such rigorous measures as well. Together with prohibiting non-compliant ships, they can incentivize the process, for instance, through port tariffs to encourage adoption of exhaust treatment and alternative fuels (The Cornell Group, 2014). Companies and individuals should also avoid using old vessels that have mechanical problems because they emit more than fully functional engines that have not experienced a lot of wear and tear.
Part of the significant greenhouse gas emission is due to other forms of transportation such as rail and road that ship cargo to and from the port of Mombasa. Addressing this issue requires the efforts of the government and the entire transport sector, and not just the Kenya Ports Authority. One of the measures put in place is the standard Gauge Railway as an alternative means of freight transportation (Banks, Ruijs , & Mwai, 2017). Instead of the large number of freight haul trucks and old trains emitting fumes the use of this modern form of transportation should prove beneficial in the efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Proper heavy truck and vehicle maintenance is also crucial.
Other mitigation practices include more commitment to fully adopt international standards on pollution such as the MARPOL Annex VI. Better methods of quantifying the amounts of GHG emissions are being put in place and more personnel trained in this field. Other trainings on regulating fuel consumption and the use of low carbon technologies are underway (Government of Kenya , 2018). With such measures, Kenya is on its way to fulfiling the 30% reduction of carbon and other GHG emissions not just in the maritime sector but across the entire country in even less than the targeted time of ten years.