Decarbonising ports: Plans are easy. Progress is not.

Ports have a significant strategic role to play as facilitators of the decarbonisation of society. As enablers, they can support the growth of renewable energy sectors like fixed and floating offshore wind, or act as the sea to land interface for the transportation of carbon dioxide captured from industrial processes. With 3-4% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stemming from port’s main users (ships), and the consequential postponement of the adoption of the IMO Net-Zero framework causing uncertainty on the policies timeline, the role of ports is also crucial in enabling the decarbonisation of maritime transportation itself. But despite this strategic importance in enabling decarbonisation and emissions reduction, how much progress are ports making in reducing their own emissions?

My work as a Port Consultant at Haskoning has connected me to ports and terminals globally, and the answer is often not straightforward. Someone once told me: “if you saw one port, you saw one port”. Every port is unique & different. Decarbonisation is almost always on the agenda, with strategies and targets discussed; even roadmaps published, but in many cases, tangible progress on the ground is slower, more fragmented, and more uncertain.

The unique nature of each port is part of the reason. If each one varies in size, governance model, cargo mix, regulatory context, and access to finance, there are few one-size-fits-all approaches or straight paths. Meanwhile growth in volumes, the introduction of new equipment, grid constraints, evolving regulation, and shifting market conditions all require strategies to be revisited and adapted over time.

Why ports still have strong reasons to act

The (beautiful) complexity of the port environment is a challenging landscape for translating strategic ambition into operational decisions, and investable opportunities. Decarbonisation plans can quickly become standalone sustainability studies, disconnected from day-to-day operational realities and capital investment cycles. But the case for action is solid and extends well beyond carbon alone. Several factors are consistently relevant across all port types and geographies, helping create an environment for greater progress:

So why is progress slow?

Despite an increasingly enabling environment for progress on decarbonisation, there are certain recurrent challenges that, in my experience, are slowing momentum beyond a port’s unique characteristics:

• Business cases for low‑carbon solutions can remain fragile, especially where conventional fuels are still cheaper and external incentives are limited.
• Responsibilities for emissions are often fragmented across port authorities, terminal operators, shipping lines and logistics providers, making coordination difficult.
• Targets are sometimes set before emissions baselines are well understood, particularly for Scope 3 emissions, undermining credibility and confidence.

Where strategies exist, monitoring and verification can become a challenge. Data is often dispersed across multiple stakeholders, methodologies are inconsistent, and real‑time insight into emissions performance remains limited. The result is that progress becomes hard to track, difficult to prove, and easy to delay.

How ports that are making progress differ

I’ve had the opportunity to support ports and terminals in moving from strategic ambitions to execution. In my experience, those ports progressing share several key characteristics:

• They start by defining clear and pragmatic emissions boundaries, even if these are not perfect.
• They prioritise no regret measures and near term actions alongside longer term strategic actions.
• Rather than waiting for full regulatory clarity, they engage with stakeholders, clients, even competitors and forge their own path.
• Their decarbonisation objectives are aligned with core business decisions, from infrastructure investment and equipment replacement to concession design and land use planning.

Crucially, these ports treat decarbonisation as a management challenge, not a purely sustainability one. Senior leadership buy-in to decarbonisation is essential: without it, the subject remains a reporting exercise rather than a business priority.

Finally, ownership for delivery is clearly assigned, ideally with a Decarbonisation or Sustainability Taskforce, and progress is tracked using quantitative indicators, with strategies regularly updated as conditions change. Metrics such as CO₂eq per TEU or tonne handled, renewable energy generated on-site, and the share of vessel calls with shore power access help make progress visible and accountable. Existing schemes like EcoPorts can assist ports in structuring this approach.

From ambition to delivery

The coming years will be decisive for ports. The question is no longer whether decarbonisation strategies exist, but whether they are driving real change. Plans are an important and necessary starting point, but they should not become the measure of success.

Progress comes when decarbonisation is part of everyday port decision making, backed by credible data, aligned with financial realities and supported by clear governance. Ports that can make this shift will not only reduce emissions, but they will also be better positioned to remain competitive, resilient and relevant in a rapidly changing maritime system.

In short: plans are easy, progress is not. But it is possible and increasingly unavoidable.

Originally published in Ports Europe on 15 July 2026.